In 1979, the US Congress enacted the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) to replace the Sino-US Mutual Defense Treaty in order to safeguard Taiwan's security and to preserve and promote commercial, cultural and other relations between the two countries. Over the past 25 years, the TRA has been cited as the legal basis for guaranteeing Taiwan's interests.
Unfortunately, in the middle of a movement pushing for a referendum in Taiwan, American Institute in Taiwan Director Douglas Paal has cited the TRA as a basis for restraining human rights and democracy in Taiwan. Paal has not only interpreted the TRA out of context but also seriously distorted it. This is incompatible with both the text and the spirit of the TRA.
"What the referendums are used for and what effects they have on the regional situation is a matter of concern to us. Our congress has declared its interest in regional stability through the TRA," Paal said in an interview published in the August issue of Topics -- the magazine of the American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei.
In fact, without the TRA, the US government can still express its concern for stability in the Western Pacific region. Without the TRA, the US can still say that stability in the Western Pacific is in the interests of the US. By citing the TRA, Paal was probably prescribing the wrong remedy for an illness, as a Chinese saying goes.
First of all, in view of the TRA's spirit, the purpose of the bill is to deter and prevent China from annexing Taiwan by non-peaceful means. Before the US severed diplomatic ties with Taiwan in 1979, the two sides still had the Sino-US Mutual Defense Treaty, which prevented China from attacking Taiwan and prevented then-president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) from staging a surprise military attack against China.
Taiwan's security was guaranteed by the US. After diplomatic relations were severed, the Omnibus Bill sent to the US Congress by the Jimmy Carter administration in January 1979 angered many Congress members because it ignored the issue of Taiwan's security entirely. Congress decided to revise the draft bill and eventually came up with the TRA, with powerful defensive articles stipulated in an effort to replace the abolished mutual defense treaty. Obviously, the purpose of the act is to deal with a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, not to restrain Taiwan from attacking China by force.
Second, in terms of the TRA's text, the law clearly states that "the enactment of this act is necessary to help maintain peace, security, and stability in the Western Pacific area."
Section 2 of the law also states, "Peace and stability in the area are in the political, security, and economic interests of the US, and are matters of international concern."
Paal was probably referring to this article in his comments on the TRA. But he only mentioned stability, not peace, during the interview. The claim that a referendum in Taiwan may damage stability contravenes the purpose of the TRA.
Third, while citing the US policies stipulated in the TRA, Paal surprisingly did not pay attention to Paragraph (c) of Section 2, which states, "Nothing contained in this act shall contravene the interest of the US in human rights, especially with respect to the human rights of all the approximately 18 million inhabitants of Taiwan. The preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people in Taiwan are hereby reaffirmed as objectives of the US."
This article was put forth by US Congress members concerned about Taiwan's future, including Stephen Solarz. Their position was that the people of Taiwan are entitled to the basic human rights of democracy and the freedom to choose their own government and future.
Why would the basic human rights of the Taiwanese people to implement democracy and referendums impede regional security? Paal perhaps could not get himself to say it. But obviously, what he meant was that China views a referendum in Taiwan as a "Taiwan independence movement," and that China will use military force against it.
If China decides to resort to force against the Taiwanese people's exercise of democracy and human rights, then China is the one that undermines regional peace and stability. The problem is in China's disrespect for Taiwan's democracy and human rights. The responsibility rests not in Taiwan. How could Paal say that referendums in Taiwan will damage regional stability?
As for Paal's assertion that the US is concerned about Taipei's purpose for holding referendums, his past comments suggest that the US believes there are two possible purposes behind Chen's advocating referendums. One is to boost his chances in next year's presidential election; the other is to declare Taiwan's sovereignty.
If Chen's purpose is the first one, then it is a maneuver in Taiwan's domestic political wrangling. The US has no need to show any concern. If Chen's purpose is to declare sovereignty, then the US should not be concerned either, because this is part of the sovereignty battle between Taiwan and China, a battle fought through peaceful means.
The US has not expressed concern over China's attempts to isolate and suppress Taiwan in the international community, or to co-opt Taiwan's sovereignty by changing its name at international organizations. Why should it then express concern when Taiwan adopts relatively peaceful methods to safeguard its sovereignty?
Since the US has emphasized that the disagreements between Taiwan and China should be resolved by peaceful means, why has the US condoned China's diplomatic attempts to deprive Taiwan of its sovereignty, and yet not allowed Taiwan to safeguard its sovereignty via democratic and peaceful methods?
Of course, some pro-China people will defend China's attempts to co-opt Taiwan's sovereignty by saying that the US has the "one China" policy. Such misinterpretations are exactly the reason why this policy has been challenged in the US Congress. John Tkacik, a China policy expert at the Heritage Foundation, presided over a seminar on the "one China" policy on Sept. 16. Steve Chabot, a Republican US House representative, and Robert Andrews, a Democrat US House representative, voiced their doubts at the seminar about the suitability of this policy.
Their most important argument was that the "one China" policy does not recognize China's sovereignty claim over Taiwan, but it is used by China as a basis for such claim. They therefore suggested that the US review this policy and make clear that Taiwan's future should be determined by the people of Taiwan and that Taiwan's sovereignty does not belong to China.
The reason why US political circles are beginning to question the "one China" policy is related to the democratization of Taiwan. The "one China" concept as it existed under the KMT's authoritarian martial law rule and the Chinese Civil War was used by former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger as an escape plan for the US, whereby the country "acknowledged" instead of recognizing "one China." This empty policy, however, has begun to crumble under former president Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) "state-to-state" model of cross-strait relations and President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) "one country on each side" stance.
Based on its own interests, China is demanding that the US not change its "one China" policy, but the US no longer has a basis for persisting in a "one China" policy that is used by China to harm Taiwan's sovereignty.
Remarks by Lee Teng-hui and retired National Taiwan University law professor, and one of Chen's gurus, Lee Hung-hsi (李鴻禧) pointing out that "the Republic of China no longer exists," as well as the advocacy of a new Taiwanese constitution and for calling Taiwan "Taiwan" all serve to further highlight the fact that sovereignty rests with the people, and that the "one China" policy has become an anachronism.
Lee Teng-hui's demand that school textbooks include the San Francisco Peace Treaty -- so as to clarify that the return of Taiwan's sovereignty to China is not a historical fact -- is very important for the realization of Taiwanese democracy, guaranteeing Taiwanese sovereignty and challenging the empty one China policy.
The treaty was signed by the major countries at war with Japan. Neither the PRC nor the ROC were parties to the treaty, which merely states that Japan "renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores."
The US, the UK and Japan are signatories to the treaty. According to the treaty text, none of them has the right to unilaterally claim the "return" of Taiwan to China. The bilateral Treaty of Taipei signed by the ROC and Japan is based on the San Francisco pact.
Afterward, then foreign minister George Yeh (葉公超) was subjected to harsh questioning by legislators in a secret Legislative Yuan meeting regarding why the treaty between the ROC and Japan did not state unambiguously that Taiwan and Penghu were returned to the ROC.
Yeh's reply was succinct -- in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan only agreed to "renunciation" and because the peace treaty had been ratified by the allies, Taiwan and Penghu no longer belonged to Japan, which thus had no right to state in the treaty with the ROC that it "returned" Taiwan to any country. Even if Japan wanted to return Taiwan and Penghu to China, "we" could not accept that.
Yeh also said that neither the San Francisco Peace Treaty nor the Treaty of Taipei included any text specifying "the future of Taiwan."
Yeh's account corroborates Lee Teng-hui's opinion that "sovereignty rests with the people," and that the ROC only is "occupying" Taiwan. Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to the people of Taiwan, who have the basic human right to decide their own constitution and national title. Beijing's promotion of one China can neither change the final decision of the San Francisco Peace Treaty nor arrive at the conclusion that Taiwan belongs to China.
Paal, who likes to quote the TRA, should take a look at Section 15, Paragraph 2 of that act: "The term `Taiwan' includes, as the context may require ... and the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the United States as the Republic of China prior to Jan. 1, 1979, and any successor governing authorities (including political subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof)."
In other words, the TRA already leaves a way out for a future change of national and government title by Taiwan. If Paal wants to stress regional stability, the focus should be on requiring that Beijing recognizes the sovereignty of Taiwan, and not on helping Beijing suppress Taiwan's democracy and human rights and harming Taiwanese sovereignty.
James Wang is a journalist based in Washington.
Translated by Eddy Chang, Jackie Lin and Perry Svensson
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS