Dear Senator Kerry: There are more than 600,000 US citizens of Taiwanese heritage. In the November presidential election, Taiwanese Americans will vote for the candidate who firmly supports democratic Taiwan.
During the Iowa caucus you said the US should push for a "one China, two systems" for Taiwan. While Beijing promised Hong Kong 50 years of democracy under "one country, two systems," it has already reneged on that pledge. The Taiwan Relations Act says it is the objective of the US to preserve and enhance the human rights of the people of Taiwan. How can we in good conscience push the free people of Taiwan into servitude under the Chinese Communist Party's repressive rule?
We hope you simply misspoke when you suggested "one China, two systems" for Taiwan's future. The proposal is contrary to US policy toward Taiwan, which has been carefully developed by six former US presidents. But we have not seen any retraction of your Iowa statement.
The Democratic Party's platform committee came up with a draft during a recent meeting in Florida. In a one-sentence reference to Taiwan, the draft platform states: "We are committed to a `one China' policy, and will continue to support a peaceful resolution of cross-Straits [sic] issues that is consistent with the wishes and best interests of the Taiwanese people."
Missing conspicuously from the draft is any affirmation of US commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act. In contrast, the 2000 Democratic Party platform said: "A Gore administration will fulfill its responsibilities under the Taiwan Relations Act ... We support resolution of cross-Straits [sic] issues that is both peaceful and consistent with the wishes of the people of Taiwan."
The failure to affirm the Taiwan Relations Act, in combination with your suggestion of a Hong Kong-style future for Taiwan, could lead to undesirable consequences for both the US and Taiwan. Beijing could decide to actively intercede in the November election on your behalf, since your position on Taiwan appears to be much more accommodating to China's declared intent to annex Taiwan, by force if necessary. Foreign intervention in the US presidential election is not only illegal, it would be harmful to US national interests. No US president should be beholden to a foreign power because of its help in winning the White House.
The People's Liberation Army (PLA) has been actively developing the capacity to invade Taiwan with a multi-prong blitzkrieg with the aim of occupying the island before the US can react. At present, the PLA is conducting a large-scale joint-force exercise simulating an invasion of Taiwan on China's southeastern coast. Tensions across the Taiwan Strait are high. If China perceives that a Kerry administration will not honor America's commitment to help defend Taiwan, China could well decide to launch an all-out military invasion against Taiwan while US forces are still preoccupied with intractable problems in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In 2000, the Republican platform strongly affirmed the Taiwan Relations Act as follows: "We deny the right of Beijing to impose its rule on the free Taiwanese people. All issues regarding Taiwan's future must be resolved peacefully and must be agreed to by the people of Taiwan. [If China attacked Taiwan,] the United States will respond appropriately in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act. America will help Taiwan defend itself."
We strongly recommend that you instruct the Platform Committee to insert language affirming the Taiwan Relations Act into this year's platform of the Democratic Party.
We look forward to hearing your view on this matter.
Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then