In July 1982, the US government informed Congress of the “six assurances,” a clarification of the Taiwan Relations Act that would serve as guiding principles for continued US-Taiwan relations.
Washington and Beijing then signed a communique on arms sales to Taiwan in August after a period of intense negotiations. Taiwan was increasingly worried about the implications of the US rapprochement with China, and the six assurances were proposed to reassure Taiwan’s authorities that US support would continue.
One of the assurances agreed to by the US was: “The United States will not consult with China in advance before making decisions about US arms sales to Taiwan.”
However, if recent media reports are to be believed, US and Chinese officials did exactly that in talks in Beijing and Washington this week.
It is no secret that Taiwan has wanted to buy 66 F16C/D fighter jets from the US for several years, and recent signs from Washington indicate that support for a deal is gathering pace.
Such a sale would be anathema to Beijing, and Chinese officials must have made their objections loud and clear during this week’s talks. If it were just a case of the usual Chinese protestations then it would be nothing to worry about, but the problem for Taiwan is that over the past few years the US has found itself increasingly reliant on China, both financially and diplomatically.
This is a problem the US has brought on itself by relying heavily on the Chinese government for help in dealing with North Korea, an approach that has been of questionable value.
With Washington under such pressure, it would come as no surprise to discover that arms sales to Taiwan had been affected by the relentless efforts of Beijing.
That would tally with the gradual erosion of US policy toward Taiwan over the decades, a slip embodied by former US president Bill Clinton’s “three noes” declaration in Shanghai in June 1998. He shattered the US government’s ambiguity on the issue of Taiwan’s status by saying “no” to Taiwanese independence and saying that Taiwan wasn’t qualified to be a member of any organization for which statehood is a requirement.
The joint communique signed between Beijing and Washington in 1982 advocated a gradual reduction in the amount of arms the US would sell Taiwan. But writing in 2007, late US ambassador Harvey Feldman said that after signing the communique, former US president Ronald Reagan was so concerned over “its possible effect on Taiwan” and put so little trust in Chinese promises, that in addition to the six assurances he also filed a secret memorandum in the National Security Council files.
The memorandum said that the reduction in arms sales would be predicated on Beijing’s continued commitment to a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan issue, adding that, “it is essential that the quantity and quality of the arms provided Taiwan be conditioned entirely on the threat posed by [China]. Both in quantitative and qualitative terms, Taiwan’s defense capability relative to that of [China] will be maintained.”
In light of this week’s meetings and given Beijing’s continued military buildup, which is largely focused on settling the Taiwan issue in its favor, a public reiteration of these assurances from Washington would be more than welcome.
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS