The US presidential election in November is rapidly approaching and the two major US parties are in the middle of their national conventions.
The Republicans just held their convention in rain-swept Tampa, Florida, and nominated Mitt Romney, while the Democrats met this week in Charlotte, North Carolina.
For Taiwan, these conventions are an opportunity to get a closer look at the political trends in the US, while the two parties use the occasion to elaborate on the policies they would implement if they win the elections.
The political platforms presented at the conventions do give an indication of the political inclinations of the two candidates and their parties.
How have the respective platforms to the two parties evolved over the years?
The Republican platform has always been more extensive, saluting the people of Taiwan for their democracy and economic model, and emphasizing that the relations are based on the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA).
A welcome new element this year is the phrase: “The US and Taiwan are united in our shared belief in fair elections, personal liberty and free enterprise.”
The Republican Party platform also reiterates statements from previous years that Taiwan’s future must be resolved peacefully and through dialogue, and it must be agreeable to the people of Taiwan.
It does warn that if China violates those principles, the US would help Taiwan defend itself in accord with the TRA.
Currently, the Democratic Party platform is rather bland and disappointing: “We are committed to a ‘one China’ policy and the Taiwan Relations Act, and will continue to support a peaceful resolution of cross-strait issues that is consistent with the wishes and best interests of the people of Taiwan.”
The problem with this statement is that it refers to an anachronistic “one China” concept dating back to the 1970s. Taiwan was not a democracy at the time. It was ruled by a Chinese Nationalist government which had come from China and maintained the pretense that it represents China.
Times have changed and Taiwan is now a democracy representing the people of Taiwan. The US should change accordingly and talk about a “one China, one Taiwan” policy.
The “one China” policy that the US has followed since the 1970s breeds instability in the Taiwan Strait by sending ambiguous signals to both the US’ allies and rivals.
The cumulative result of the “one China” policy practiced over successive US administrations has been to box the people of Taiwan into a state of perpetual political limbo, while emboldening the autocratic regime across the Strait to expand its military capacity at a rate that is unsettling to all of its neighbors.
Given the momentous changes that have occurred both within and outside of Taiwan over recent decades, it is time for Washington to formulate a new vision for relations with Taiwan, one that rests more firmly on the values of democracy and freedom which we share with the Taiwanese people.
The US must now adopt a “one China, one Taiwan” policy to make it clear that the future of Taiwan cannot be negotiated over the heads of its people, but rather should be determined by the people of Taiwan, through a referendum or other democratic mechanism.
That is what democracy and self-determination are all about, and those are the values both the people in the US and Taiwan hold dear.
Nat Bellocchi served as chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan from 1990 through 1995. The views expressed in this article are his own.
I came to Taiwan to pursue my degree thinking that Taiwanese are “friendly,” but I was welcomed by Taiwanese classmates laughing at my friend’s name, Maria (瑪莉亞). At the time, I could not understand why they were mocking the name of Jesus’ mother. Later, I learned that “Maria” had become a stereotype — a shorthand for Filipino migrant workers. That was because many Filipino women in Taiwan, especially those who became house helpers, happen to have that name. With the rapidly increasing number of foreigners coming to Taiwan to work or study, more Taiwanese are interacting, socializing and forming relationships with
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
The recent termination of Tibetan-language broadcasts by Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a significant setback for Tibetans both in Tibet and across the global diaspora. The broadcasts have long served as a vital lifeline, providing uncensored news, cultural preservation and a sense of connection for a community often isolated by geopolitical realities. For Tibetans living under Chinese rule, access to independent information is severely restricted. The Chinese government tightly controls media and censors content that challenges its narrative. VOA and RFA broadcasts have been among the few sources of uncensored news available to Tibetans, offering insights
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS