The US presidential election in November is rapidly approaching and the two major US parties are in the middle of their national conventions.
The Republicans just held their convention in rain-swept Tampa, Florida, and nominated Mitt Romney, while the Democrats met this week in Charlotte, North Carolina.
For Taiwan, these conventions are an opportunity to get a closer look at the political trends in the US, while the two parties use the occasion to elaborate on the policies they would implement if they win the elections.
The political platforms presented at the conventions do give an indication of the political inclinations of the two candidates and their parties.
How have the respective platforms to the two parties evolved over the years?
The Republican platform has always been more extensive, saluting the people of Taiwan for their democracy and economic model, and emphasizing that the relations are based on the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA).
A welcome new element this year is the phrase: “The US and Taiwan are united in our shared belief in fair elections, personal liberty and free enterprise.”
The Republican Party platform also reiterates statements from previous years that Taiwan’s future must be resolved peacefully and through dialogue, and it must be agreeable to the people of Taiwan.
It does warn that if China violates those principles, the US would help Taiwan defend itself in accord with the TRA.
Currently, the Democratic Party platform is rather bland and disappointing: “We are committed to a ‘one China’ policy and the Taiwan Relations Act, and will continue to support a peaceful resolution of cross-strait issues that is consistent with the wishes and best interests of the people of Taiwan.”
The problem with this statement is that it refers to an anachronistic “one China” concept dating back to the 1970s. Taiwan was not a democracy at the time. It was ruled by a Chinese Nationalist government which had come from China and maintained the pretense that it represents China.
Times have changed and Taiwan is now a democracy representing the people of Taiwan. The US should change accordingly and talk about a “one China, one Taiwan” policy.
The “one China” policy that the US has followed since the 1970s breeds instability in the Taiwan Strait by sending ambiguous signals to both the US’ allies and rivals.
The cumulative result of the “one China” policy practiced over successive US administrations has been to box the people of Taiwan into a state of perpetual political limbo, while emboldening the autocratic regime across the Strait to expand its military capacity at a rate that is unsettling to all of its neighbors.
Given the momentous changes that have occurred both within and outside of Taiwan over recent decades, it is time for Washington to formulate a new vision for relations with Taiwan, one that rests more firmly on the values of democracy and freedom which we share with the Taiwanese people.
The US must now adopt a “one China, one Taiwan” policy to make it clear that the future of Taiwan cannot be negotiated over the heads of its people, but rather should be determined by the people of Taiwan, through a referendum or other democratic mechanism.
That is what democracy and self-determination are all about, and those are the values both the people in the US and Taiwan hold dear.
Nat Bellocchi served as chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan from 1990 through 1995. The views expressed in this article are his own.
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
As technological change sweeps across the world, the focus of education has undergone an inevitable shift toward artificial intelligence (AI) and digital learning. However, the HundrED Global Collection 2026 report has a message that Taiwanese society and education policymakers would do well to reflect on. In the age of AI, the scarcest resource in education is not advanced computing power, but people; and the most urgent global educational crisis is not technological backwardness, but teacher well-being and retention. Covering 52 countries, the report from HundrED, a Finnish nonprofit that reviews and compiles innovative solutions in education from around the world, highlights a
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
RSS