Although neither US presidential candidate touched on his views regarding China and Taiwan in the first debate, a closer look at the China policy statements presented by Republican Senator John McCain and Democratic Senator Barack Obama highlights similarities as well as differences.
Both the McCain camp and the Obama camp recognize the significance of China’s rise, saying Washington needs to strengthen its bilateral cooperation with Beijing on issues such as anti-terrorism, six-party talks, climate change and energy. Both camps have called on Beijing to improve its human rights record, open markets, remove trade barriers and protect intellectual property rights. Most importantly, McCain and Obama have pledged to reinforce US security partnerships with its Asian allies.
When it comes to US policy toward Taiwan, both camps have emphasized the need to abide by the three communiques — which played a crucial role in the normalization of relations between the US and the China — and the Taiwan Relations Act. What separates McCain from Obama is the degree to which they perceive China and the approach they intend to utilize in their dealings with China.
For McCain’s team, “engaging plus hedging” would constitute an essential element of balancing China’s rise. Obama’s camp would rely more on engagement.
Obama’s Asian policy advisers have been urging him to avoid repeating US President George W. Bush’s mistake of sending wrong messages to former Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).
Some of them have compared Taiwan’s Chen with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili for taking advantage of US support by orchestrating a move toward independence from China in Taiwan’s case and Russia in the case of Georgia.
Because of Bush’s mixed signals to both leaders, they say, the US is risking its relations with China and Russia.
The McCain camp, on the other hand, has demanded that Beijing share more international responsibility by improving its human rights record and pace of democratization.
On the surface, it appears that a McCain administration would be friendlier to Taiwan, particularly when it comes to Taiwan’s democracy and self-defense.
However, leaders from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) should take into consideration new dynamics that will be attached to the US-China relationship after the election, no matter who becomes the next US president.
First, unlike the ongoing disputes between Washington and Beijing over issues such as Taiwan, human rights and trade, both sides have established a closer partnership in the past decade, engaging in multi-lateral and high-ranking dialogues. China’s diplomatic lobbying on Capitol Hill has put tremendous pressure on Taipei’s relations with Washington.
Moreover, the next US president will inherit a “fragile, reconstructing but uncertain” US-Taiwan relationship. For the KMT and President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, the warming of relations across the Taiwan Strait following the resumption of cross-strait talks and the expansion of chartered flights and Chinese tourists visiting Taiwan has won high praise from Washington.
However, both the Obama and McCain camps have been closely watching Ma’s rollercoaster ride in terms of ebbing and flowing domestic support, his failure to gain the country economic leverage after opening to China and his lack of determination in enhancing Taiwan’s military capabilities.
How the Chinese react to Ma’s bid for observer status at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May under his new “cross-strait diplomatic truce” strategy constitutes the major challenge to Taiwan’s rapprochement with Beijing.
What’s more intriguing is that a “cross-strait cross-fire” would likely flare up at the mid-point of the next US president’s administration. Can the US play a pivotal role in convincing China’s leaders to give concessions to Ma? Can the next US president handle a confrontation between Taipei and Beijing if China continues to slap Taiwan in the face by blocking it from joining the world heath community?
For the DPP, the fact that the Washington mainstream favors engagement with China should reinforce party leaders who want to reorient their approach toward the US.
The perception in Washington that Chen was a “troublemaker” was faulty but unfortunately a reality. Pundits in Washington saw as “provocative” moves made by Chen and the DPP government to deepen Taiwan’s democracy, to foster a stronger sense of Taiwanese identity and to promote participation in international society.
US-Taiwan relations ended on a major note of distrust in the final days of Chen’s second term. Now the DPP is in the middle of a phase of regeneration, as its new chairwoman, Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), has advocated recently in Washington.
It might serve as a driving force for Taiwan’s democratization from the perspective of checking and balancing the KMT government and upholding the ultimate rights of Taiwanese in deciding their future.
Still, more frank and candid communication is needed with the US. So, too, is more open-mindedness in preserving Taiwan’s democracy and sovereignty.
Liu Shih-chung is a visiting fellow at the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his