Now that both the Democratic and Republican party conventions in the US are over and the election is less than two months away, many in Asia must be wondering what Romney would do differently if he were elected. The answer is nothing, or almost nothing. The fundamentals of US foreign policy change little, with perhaps a few aspects highlighted more than others at specific times. Taking a controversial issue, the 2003 Iraq war for example, between 1990 and 2003 one administration built on what had come before. This was true irrespective of the party and will be true in Asia also.
Former US president George H.W. Bush drove Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991. Former US president Bill Clinton followed on from this and signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in October 1998, which made it official US government policy to overthrow Saddam Hussein. In December 1998, Clinton ordered cruise missiles to be fired at Iraq. Many in his administration had been pushing for the overthrow of Saddam for years. Clinton’s then-national security adviser, Sandy Berger, as well as then-vice president Al Gore were pushing especially hard for the Iraqi dictator’s overthrow.
Former US president George W. Bush said during the 2000 election campaign that he was tired of the nation building on the policies of its predecessors. Yet, this was the same administration that invaded Iraq. In 2008, those hoping for a change in direction after the election of US President Barack Obama were sorely disappointed. Obama has carried on the policies of the Bush administration. He has not closed the US military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, after saying he would, and has reinstated military trials after suspending them. When Obama announced the death of Osama bin Laden in May last year his remarks could just have easily come from the mouth of the former governor of Texas.
Similarly, the US’ Asia policy remains generally the same. One example is the six-party talks — composed of China, the US, South Korea, Japan, Russia and North Korea. The talks that began in 2003 under George W. Bush continued through his administration and were passed on to the Obama administraion. Following the 2009 North Korea missile test and the sinking of a South Korean submarine the following year, last year the US and the North Korean regime held bilateral talks. In February this year, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un said that he would halt nuclear tests and allow the return of international inspectors in return for food aid. Some have suggested that this could pave the way for a return to the six-party talks.
In an article published in the Wall Street Journal on Feb. 16, US Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney laid out his vision of US-China relations. Romney said that a possible “Chinese century” where there are limited individual rights “would become a widespread and disquieting norm.” He went on to criticize Obama’s pivot strategy, a strategy which was elucidated by US Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton’s Foreign Policy article America’s Pacific Century.
Romney makes the spurious claim that this pivot means leaving “our allies with the worrying impression that we left the region and might do so again.” This is of course patently false. The US never really “left” Asia, with the US having continually traded, and sometimes warred, with its Pacific neighbors throughout its history.
Romney goes on to say, perhaps most controversially, that “unless China changes its ways, on day one of my presidency I will designate it a currency manipulator and take appropriate counteraction. A trade war with China is the last thing I want, but I cannot tolerate our current trade surrender.”
If a president Romney were to put this into effect, the result would be a steady worsening of relations between the two largest economies in the world. While not a certainty, a tit-for-tat approach would likely ensue. This would leave both nations, and the rest of the world, worse off.
It is heartening to remember that then-senator Obama, giving a speech in April 2008, said: “China has been competing in ways that are tilting the playing field.”
Importantly, he went on to say: “They’re also grossly undervaluing their currency, and giving their goods yet another unfair advantage. Each year they’ve had the chance, the Bush administration has failed to do anything about this. That’s unacceptable. That’s why I co-sponsored the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act and that’s why as president, I’ll use all the diplomatic avenues open to me to insist that China stop manipulating its currency.”
The US’ friendship with Taiwan was witnessed in 1996 when then-president Lee Teng-hui visited his alma mater in New York. Chinese-US relations were severely damaged as a result of the ensuing row. This does not mean that the US is unreservedly behind Taiwan; it must of course also maintain its ties with Beijing. Many do not realize that on a visit to South America in 1994, Lee wished to stop off in Hawaii, a US state, to play golf. However, his plane was allowed only to refuel. Then-president Clinton knew of both the domestic and foreign consequences of allowing Lee to land on US soil and decided not to antagonize China so early in his presidency.
US-Taiwan relations have changed little throughout a host of different presidents from both parties. The US has consistently juggled its relations with both China and Taiwan. Though it has not changed its formal diplomatic association, it has nonetheless ensured that Taiwan’s armed forces are well-equipped. In September last year alone, the US Federal Government authorized a US$5.8 billion weapons upgrade package, even though Xinhua news service described the decision as a “despicable breach of faith in international relations.”
The actions of Obama will be carried on by Romney, if he is elected.
Luke Cahill is a US and international political commentator.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS