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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS