Will Taiwan Feel the Bern?

Taiwan is too vulnerable to the ebb and flow of domestic U.S. politics and should strive to foster stronger relations with other countries to complement its relationship with Washington
Photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg/Getty Images
Liam Joel Han
By

The unofficial bilateral relationship between the U.S. and Taiwan is arguably one of the most important in the Asia-Pacific region, if not the world. For Taiwan in particular, this relationship forms the basis of its continued freedom and security. The commander-in-chief of the U.S. is a key figure in guiding foreign policy, and as such it would be prudent for Taipei to be conscious of what a change in administration in Washington could mean for the future.

Given her track record of being tough on China, Hillary Clinton, until recently seen as the heir-apparent to the Obama administration, poses little concern for the Taiwanese government. However, the unexpected rise of Bernie Sanders could potentially cause the much-coveted “status quo” to be affected in ways that will have long-lasting repercussions.

Taiwan itself, having just witnessed a historic transfer in both legislative and executive power, may currently be preoccupied with domestic reforms. But it should be prepared for the very real chance of an unanticipated and unconventional POTUS.

Announcing his candidacy on May 26, 2015, Sanders has staged a spectacular campaign that has resulted in him moving from relative obscurity, polling far behind Hillary Clinton, to a genuine contender for the Democrat nomination. While still facing challenges, Sanders currently enjoys approximately 43 percent of the overall popular primary vote, due in large part to his message of clean and representative governance. The potential for a surprise victory therefore cannot be discounted.

As in the recent elections in Taiwan, Sanders’ overriding rhetoric has focused primarily on domestic issues, with removing money from the political process being particularly salient. Specifics regarding foreign policy, meanwhile, have been surprisingly hard to determine, with both Democrat candidates relying heavily on rhetoric. This is a failure on both sides, but arguably less problematic with Clinton due to her status as a former secretary of state, a role in the executive branch by which we can judge her abilities.

Given the unlikeliness that the issue of Taiwan will be brought up directly in the primaries, Sanders’ stance on Taiwan can only be gleaned from his congressional voting record. During his time in congress, two important bills concerning Taiwan’s security were voted on: HR 238 – Missile Defense Cooperation (1997), and S Amdt 634 – Sale of F-16s (2011). Sanders voted nay on both.

Furthermore, despite references to Tibet on his web site, with wording that implies that Tibet is not a part of China, there is not a single mention of Taiwan. Commenting on Tibet might signal that Sanders is sympathetic to the idea of self-determination, however sentiment rarely achieves much in and of itself and, as his voting record has demonstrated, he is unlikely to actively seek to deter Chinese aggression by providing Taiwan with modern arms.

This exposes a crucial weakness on Taiwan’s part: overreliance on the U.S. for weapons. Hopefully president-elect Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) will follow through on her campaign platform of developing the domestic defense industry.

There is, however, one Sanders policy that could be a boon to democratic Taiwan. If he were successful in his goal of eradicating money in the American political system and reducing the influence that big corporations have in policy making, the U.S. government could have more room to manoeuver and to make demands when in talks with Beijing without fear or campaign contributions being used as a bargaining chip to curtail strong criticism. In addition, due to the nature of the U.S. defense industry as an extremely important part of the economy — the Department of Defense alone employs approximately 3 million people — Sanders could still be compelled to promote the continued sale of arms to Taiwan simply as a means to preserve thousands of jobs for Americans.[1]

The final, and potentially critical, issue for the Taiwanese government to consider in its assessment of what a Sanders presidency might mean is his stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Sanders is firmly against the U.S. joining the trade bloc, meaning that even if Taiwan became a signatory, it would not have the type of unfettered access to the largest market in the world needed to help ease its reliance on China. Furthermore, it could make it more difficult for Taiwan to join due to the pressure China would be able to exert on smaller countries in the absence of U.S. reassurances.

Clinton, on the other hand, has overtly stated that Taiwan should diversify its economy to avoid political coercion by China, lending credence to the belief that she would support Taiwan joining any treaty or organization that reduces dependence on China.

In general, the future Taiwanese president should have three expectations when it comes to her American counterpart:

1. Consistent rhetoric indicating continued support for Taiwanese democracy;
2. Arms sales that reinforce said rhetoric;
3. Economic policies that promote Taiwanese autonomy and participation in the international community.

Thus far, Sanders has failed to inspire confidence that he will satisfy the first two, and his economic policies seem to focus primarily on the domestic market rather than greater integration into a globalized economy, which suggests that he would be unlikely to promote greater Taiwanese participation in any non-symbolic way.

A Sanders presidency could thus be characterized as a domestically focused one, and while he has not stated that he wishes to drastically alter the U.S.’ position in the world, his preoccupation with internal issues may be interpreted as a step back from world affairs, to the detriment of some of the U.S.’ allies, particularly vulnerable ones such as Taiwan.

With that said, Sanders would still be constrained to some degree by Congress, which has typically been Taiwan’s greatest ally. Thus, legislators could step in if they felt that president Sanders was seriously endangering the island nation, as it did with the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979.

Overall, a Clinton presidency would conceivably create more opportunities for Taiwan due to her being innately more foreign policy orientated. In addition, there is the possibility that Clinton may feel slightly more personally invested in Taiwan due Tsai, thus creating a bridge of mutual understanding between two first female presidents. Sanders, on the other hand, more than likely represents a continuation of Obama’s policies, and perhaps even a return to the posture that Taiwan shouldn’t be a “troublemaker” expecting the U.S. to intervene on its behalf, which would denote a massive setback for Taiwan’s progression toward becoming a normalized state in the international community.

Should Sanders be elected, Taipei would have to formulate a new, relatively cautious approach to how Taiwan intends to proceed, at least until Sanders’ positions are more clear. Nevertheless, this primary election and soon the general election demonstrate just how vulnerable Taiwan is to the ebb and flow of domestic U.S. politics and how Taiwan should strive to foster stronger relations with other countries to complement its relationship with Washington.

 

Having spent time in the U.S., Hong Kong and China, Liam Joel Han returns to Taiwan at least once a year. Currently a student in the United Kingdom, his research interests focus on Taiwan’s international relations, security and growing civic identity. His current dissertation centers on analyzing the extent to which the Ma Ying-jeou administration’s pro-China policies have contributed to a rising and distinct Taiwanese consciousness. The views expressed in this article are his alone.

 

[1] Tucker, N. B. & Glaser, B. (2011) “Should The United States Abandon Taiwan?” The Washington Quarterly, 34(4) 23-37.

13 Responses to “Will Taiwan Feel the Bern?”

April 12, 2016 at 9:32 am, sarah lin said:

“Taiwan has always been a safe hold for the US to place their arms in case a war with China arises”

which weapons are these? america sells nothing but decades old weapons to taiwan.

to be honest i saw this as criticising taiwan for being lazy and complacent and relying on america and an administration change being a wake up call

Reply

April 12, 2016 at 11:21 am, Mike Fagan said:

And it’s a fact that is irrelevant in this context. Corporation produces X and you buy X. Who benefits? The corporation and you. Obviously. An arrangement that reduces the restrictions on this transaction cannot logically benefit only one party.

That is why Trump, for example, is in the wrong when he talks about restricting Chinese imports.

As for the article, it is, much like Bernie Sanders himself, all downstream endarkenment from that initial point of elementary misunderstanding.

“If he were successful in his goal of eradicating money in the American political system and reducing the influence that big corporations have in policy making, the U.S. government could have more room to manoeuver and to make demands when in talks with Beijing without fear or campaign contributions being used as a bargaining chip to curtail strong criticism.”

Or alternatively, and far more easily and likely, the U.S. voters could just elect Trump, who, like Bernie, doesn’t want free trade but who at least doesn’t need campaign contributions and is possibly reckless enough to not give a flying duck what Beijing thinks in the first place.

Reply

April 12, 2016 at 8:57 pm, LB said:

Bernie isn’t against free trade – he’s against ‘free trade’ that sends US jobs overseas and leaves the US with nothing but tax dodgers, jobless individuals, and a broken economy. I don’t benefit from wealthy corporations. Most don’t in the US. They pollute the environment and act above the law. This idea that we need big corporations simply isn’t true. Is every corporation bad? Of course not. Is the TPP bad? Yes, if you’re not a corporation, it’s bloody awful. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154028068248286&set=a.10150208058783286.325979.674633285&type=3&theater

If we don’t put restrictions on corporations we lose. They will have zero problem putting restrictions on us.

I’m not a Trump supporter, but I don’t think limiting some things from China would be so bad…for any country. China has bought up much of Taiwan’s real estate and its media – its been a slippery slope since 2008 that Taiwan has been on since it opened up many of its sectors. Taiwan is in a poor state as a result, i.e., young people being unable to buy a house, especially in Taipei.
China has done the same thing to the housing markets in Toronto, B.C., California, Brazil…the list goes on. Now, that’s not trade necessarily but something I feel is a serious growing problem.

Reply

April 13, 2016 at 1:39 am, Mike Fagan said:

“Bernie isn’t against free trade – he’s against ‘free trade’…”

So good of you to clarify that for us.

“…sends US jobs overseas and leaves the US with nothing but tax dodgers, jobless individuals, and a broken economy…”

(1) What “US jobs”? There is no inherent reason why those jobs should be considered “US jobs”. There is no inherent reason why a bloke in China can’t make your steel rods, or your valve seals or your Adidas trainers with just as much right as some bloke in Pennsylvania. In what way does being born in a certain country entitle you to manufacture stuff that I want to buy?

(2) Tax “dodgers” are perfectly sensible people trying to keep their money for their own purposes and prevent it being stolen by government to be pissed up the wall on “gender studies” courses, the F-35 program, big bank bailouts and other assorted bullshit.

(3) Jobless people ought to get back into work asap, and that’s because nobody owes anyone else a god damn thing. For one person to claim a “right” to a job necessarily entails that someone else has an “obligation” to provide him with one. Similarly, a so-called “right” to healthcare or education necessarily entails that someone else has an “obligation” to provide you with that. If you go up to a doctor and demand medical treatment without payment, then you are claiming a right to his services regardless of his own choice. That is involuntary servitude and it has another name: slavery. As someone once said…

“If you have a right to make me pay for your medicine, then why don’t you have the right to make me pick your cotton?”

(4) Unemployment is not a sign of a broken economy, and full employment is not a sign of a working economy. This is an elementary error. Unemployment (which is hopefully temporary) is a necessary consequence of a changing, growing economy and technological, economic and cultural movement. It is only in an imaginary static economy that full employment is possible, but at the cost of the human spirit. That was the terrible human cost of Mao’s China and the USSR under Stalin.

“I don’t benefit from wealthy corporations.”

Yes you do, you’re just too ignorant to realize it. Look at the clothes you’re wearing, the toothbrush you used this morning, the computer / cellphone you are reading this on, etc…

“This idea that we need big corporations simply isn’t true.”

Correct. As an alternative we could go and live in the caves and trees with shoes made out of leaves and tunics made out of the woven poems of radical feminists, cultural Che Guevaras and environmental activists. That future can be arranged if you people are bright enough to continue pushing for it.

“If we don’t put restrictions on corporations we lose. They will have zero problem putting restrictions on us.”

That is because of the insistence on concentrated, centralized political power in the government; without that the worst a corporation can do is to threaten to sell us daft products, like Adidas shoes without laces.

“…but I don’t think limiting some things from China would be so bad…for any country.”

Yes because poor people in the U.S. or “any country” just love paying even more money for U.S. made T-shirts and trainers and other things don’t they? I mean who’d have thought it – leaving the poor with less money to spend on other daily necessities? Genius.

“China has bought up much of Taiwan’s real estate and its media…”

And achieved sweet FA. In fact if anything they have made negative progress in that more and more Taiwanese people are against Chinese annexation than ever before.

“Taiwan is in a poor state as a result, i.e., young people being unable to buy a house, especially in Taipei.”

Young people not being able to buy houses is down to a number of things, which would probably be the case with or without Chinese investment in Taiwanese real estate. House price inflation may be the first thing, due to restrictions on housing supply (e.g. government regulations on zoning) and very low interest rates. Stagnant salaries and lack of new industries may be another thing, due to Taiwan’s discouragement of creativity in any field of human endeavor unrelated to the consumption of food.

Reply

April 13, 2016 at 2:08 am, LB said:

“Tax “dodgers” are perfectly sensible people…”

Seriously? I don’t even know where to start, so I’m not going to.

Reply

April 13, 2016 at 2:11 am, Mike Fagan said:

Well see there’s a difference between “tax avoidance” and “tax evasion”, the former being legal and the other being illegal. “Dodger” doesn’t specify which one, so I went with the first one because let’s face it, in all likelihood you probably believe all money belongs to the State to begin with don’t you?

Reply

Comments are welcome, but will be moderated. Remarks containing abusive language, personal attacks or self-promotion will not be published. We encourage healthy discussion and, above all, tolerance of other's views.