"Absolutely not," responded Matt Gobush, spokesperson for Leon Fuerth, when asked if Al Gore's National Security Advisor meant to signal a shift by the vice president toward recognizing the PRC's claim that Taiwan is part of China. Fuerth "did not mean to go beyond the established US `one China' policy," stated Gobush, referring to remarks Fuerth made at the State Department on Oct. 26 that were reported in the Taipei Times two days later.
Fuerth's statement that the vice president recognizes and supports the `one China' doctrine were meant as a reaffirmation of long-standing policy, and were not a reference to the language of the Three Communiques where the US "acknowledges" the PRC position.
The distinction between "recognizes" and "acknowledges" is an important one and has been clarified over the years of debate on this issue.
In the Senate debate on the Taiwan Relations Act (February 1979), Senator Jacob Javits stated, "I notice that the Chinese translation, according to our staff, of the communique [referring to the January 1979 Joint Communique], which is the basis for our action here, uses a Chinese word which means `recognition' in respect of the PRC's view of Taiwan, the `one China' view, whereas our translation -- and I have it here before me -- uses the words `the Government of the US acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but `one China' and that Taiwan is part of China,' and that is the language of the Shanghai Communique -- acknowledgement. Now is it going to be made clear to the Chinese that our position remains consistent? They have their interpretation. Whether Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) made the mistake of his life we won't know, probably, until long after I am gone. But that is their interpretation and not ours. We accept it. It is very important that we not subscribe to it either way."
Warren Christoper, the State Department's representative at the hearing, replied, "Senator Javits, we regard the English text as being the binding text. We regard the word `acknowledge' as being the word that is determinative for the US. We regard the Chinese word as being subject to that as one of the meanings to it. I simply give you assurance on that point."
Christopher had also said during the TRA debate, "It is our position that if there is to be `reunification,' it is of great importance that it be peaceful and not destabilizing in the area. But we do not have a position of encouraging the people on Taiwan to do something against their will."
In June, Fuerth reflected this historical approach when he had this to say about Gore's position, "As for the Taiwan Straits, I think the most important thing is for the US to maintain stability and predictability in its approach to the issue, because we have to continue to make it clear that we adhere to the doctrinal lines that have been laid down for several administrations now about `one China,' we need to make it clear that we strongly urge the parties to find a way to deal with the question of the future of Taiwan by peaceful means. And to the extent that we carry a big stick, we have to speak softly."
Gore is himself on record as stating, "We also have concerns over tensions building between China and Taiwan. We need to maintain our commitment to the `one China' policy, but urge China and Taiwan to intensify their dialogue and to resolve their problems by peaceful means."
The Democratic Party platform avows that a Gore Administration "will fulfill its responsibilities under the Taiwan Relations Act," and will also "remain committed to a `one China' policy. The platform also notes, "We support the resolution of cross-straits issues that is both peaceful and consistent with the wishes of the people of Taiwan."
Fuerth echoed this latter phrase, and Christopher's 1979 statement, in his recent remarks when he noted that Gore believes it is imperative for China and for Taiwan to settle their issues peacefully through dialogue and ultimately in a manner that reflects the free will of the people of Taiwan. Concluded Gobush, Fuerth's remarks "were a reiteration in keeping with the position of every Administration since at least the Shanghai Communique, fully supporting the `one China' policy."
Michael J. Fonte is a policy analyst for the Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA).
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
RSS