US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, former US vice president Joe Biden, are holding their final debate tonight. In their foreign policy debate, China is sure to be a major issue of contention for the two candidates.
Here are several questions the moderator should pose to the candidates:
For both: In the first televised US presidential debates in 1960, then-Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy and his Republican counterpart, Richard Nixon, were asked whether the US should intervene if communist China attacked Taiwan’s outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu.
Kennedy said no, unless the main island of Taiwan was also attacked. Nixon said the US should defend all of Taiwan, including its main island and the smaller ones.
Sixty years later, China is again threatening to attack Taiwan, possibly starting with Kinmen and Matsu. What should Washington’s position be?
For Biden: In 1995, China fired missiles across the Taiwan Strait and asked what the US would do if it attacked Taiwan. Then-US president Bill Clinton’s administration answered: “We don’t know and you don’t know; it would depend on the circumstances.” That policy of strategic ambiguity has been followed by every subsequent Democratic and Republican administration.
Should it still be the US approach? Or, since China believes it can successfully pull off a military move against Taiwan, is it time to be clear on US intentions and deter China from the kind of miscalculation that triggered the Korean War?
For Trump: You told Fox News recently that China knows what the US would do if it attacks Taiwan, presumably because you or someone in your administration told Chinese officials. But does Taiwan know the US’ intentions? Certainly, the American people do not yet know.
Are you prepared to inform them tonight what the US policy is on defending Taiwan?
For both: A Chinese military official has said that Beijing could teach the US a lesson if it helps defend Taiwan by sinking an aircraft carrier or two, and killing 5,000 to 10,000 sailors.
Do you take such a threat seriously — and does it intimidate Washington from helping to defend Taiwan?
For both: In Xinjiang Province, China is committing what international observers describe as genocide against Muslim Uighurs. The US Congress passed legislation, which the president signed, to punish Beijing by imposing sanctions on Chinese officials responsible for the persecution.
What more should the US and the international community do to get China to stop, or to make it pay an unacceptable price?
For both: In Tibet, China is committing what international experts describe as cultural genocide. The US Congress passed legislation, which the president signed, to punish Beijing by imposing sanctions on Chinese officials responsible for the persecution.
Is the US doing all that it can to mobilize the international community against China for its oppression of the Tibetan people and destruction of Tibetan culture?
For both: In Hong Kong, China is unilaterally scrapping the commitment it made to political autonomy for Hong Kongers under “one country, two systems.” The US Congress passed legislation, which the president signed, to punish Beijing by cutting off its Hong Kong access to the US and international financial system, but the law has not been fully implemented because some US commercial interests will be damaged.
Should Washington carry out the full intent of the law and cut Hong Kong off from the international banking system?
For both: Should the US organize an international effort to reverse China’s militarization of the South China Sea?
For both: China has protected North Korea from international sanctions for its odious human rights violations, including Soviet-style gulags where millions of North Koreans have been incarcerated and persecuted. China has also supported and enabled Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programs while telling the world that it opposes them, and undermined US and international sanctions against Kim Jong-un’s regime.
Should the US impose punishing secondary sanctions against China and Chinese officials?
For both: In addition to its oppression of Uighurs in Xinjiang and Buddhists in Tibet, the communist Chinese government is persecuting Christians, and other religious and spiritual groups. It has subjected the Falun Gong and political prisoners to murderous atrocities, such as the harvesting of human organs for commercial sale.
Should the US call upon the UN to investigate and publicize China’s human rights violations?
For Trump: US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has called upon the international community to help the Chinese people pressure the Chinese Communist Party to change its behavior. That would require an information campaign similar to what was done during the Cold War to get the truth to populations trapped behind the Iron Curtain.
However, the agencies charged with carrying out that kind of program — Voice of America and Radio Free Asia — have been decimated by your new appointee. Do you plan to revive and reinvigorate those information programs to encourage peaceful reform in China?
For Biden: Do you support a Cold War approach to peaceful regime change in China?
For both: How should China be punished for its deception that enabled COVID-19 to spread worldwide into a pandemic?
Joseph Bosco served as China country director in the office of the US secretary of defense. He is a fellow at the Institute for Taiwan-American Studies and a member of the Global Taiwan Institute’s advisory committee.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations