With the US presidential election close at hand (Nov. 8), officials and people in Taiwan have to be thinking about whether the Democratic Party’s Hillary Rodham Clinton or the Republican Party’s Donald Trump winning the election and becoming the US president would be better for Taiwan.
There are basically two ways to answer this question: the views and statements of each candidate and the positions of their respective parties.
Former US secretary of state Clinton is thoroughly disliked, one might even say despised, by China. If one believes the old adage that “one’s enemy’s enemy is my friend” this is a positive for Hillary — given the present state of cross-strait relations.
Another factor: Hillary has been fundraising in Taiwan. She has also obtained money from Taiwanese living in the US. This might suggest she has a fondness for Taiwan and/or that she owes Taiwan a debt that might be collectable once she is president.
On the other hand, she has spoken highly of US President Barack Obama’s policies and has pledged to continue them.
Clinton’s senior policy advisor, Jake Sullivan, said in July that Clinton would follow Obama’s Taiwan policy.
Obama has not been good for Taiwan in a number of critical respects. He has not allowed the amount or the quality of arms sales to Taiwan that impresses. He has not come through to help Taiwan acquire submarines or upgrade what it has, and this, in the view of many strategists, is critical.
Clinton has also opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement that President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) hopes will help Taiwan both economically and politically. She might change her position on this once in office, but renegotiating it, which she would probably do, will take some time.
Trump has been a strong critic of China. Chinese leaders are also apprehensive, and have said so, about the fact that he is too outspoken and unpredictable.
Yet, they are pleased, guardedly so, that his negative comments about China are mainly over economic issues and he assails China for policies that its leaders know must be dealt with.
Trump has worried some strategic policy analysts over his comments that Japan and South Korea should pay for their defense and the US should not bear the burden for expensive bases there and perhaps should close them.
They say that this would be very destabilizing and even invite China to attack Taiwan.
Yet Trump has not set a timetable and some suggest he is recommending policies that should and ultimately be put in place.
In counterpoint, Trump has advocated increased spending for the US military to give it a presence where it is needed. That would serve to balance China’s burgeoning military that imperils Taiwan more each day. In the event of a conflict, the US Navy would be critical, likely more important than US bases in Japan or South Korea. Anyway, Washington is building up its presence in Guam, which would be its base of operations in the event of a serious Taiwan Strait crisis.
Donald has not engaged in fundraising in Taiwan and his efforts in the US among Americans of Chinese or Taiwanese descent pales in comparison with Clinton’s.
Trump is a strong critic of Obama’s foreign policy and would not be expected to be a follower once in office. He would much more likely espouse the traditional tenets of US diplomacy.
The two political parties, on the other hand, have espoused distinctly different views and commitments on Taiwan.
The Republican Party has been a much stronger supporter of Taiwan than the Democratic Party in the past. This is still true.
In January, when Tsai won the presidential election, members of the Republican Party and the party itself were very supportive. US senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz sent personal messages of congratulations.
The Democratic Party and its leaders were congratulatory, but not so strongly.
In June, the two houses of US Congress passed a concurrent resolution affirming the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) and former US president Ronald Reagan’s “six assurances” as the basis for US’ Taiwan policy.
Republicans proposed the resolution and Republican members of Congress were more supportive of it.
In July, the Republican Party put the approval of the “six assurances” into its party program. This was the first time a US political party had ever done this.
Taiwan’s leaders and supporters in the US have criticized the Obama administration for not fulfilling the defense provision in the TRA and for acting contrary to the six assurances. They thus strongly expressed gratitude to Republican leaders for their actions.
Trump might be expected to follow the views and maybe even the leadership of US Congress since he has little experience in foreign affairs. It is probable Clinton would act based on her experience and the policies of the Obama administration, although if she becomes president she would likely not be so close to the Obama administration and its policies as she is now.
Looking at the political parties for guidance, the Republicans would treat Taiwan better. Between the two candidates it is less clear which is better.
John Copper is the Stanley J. Buckman professor emeritus of international studies at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with