On Thursday last week, the US House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing called “Why Taiwan Matters” to vent Congressional concerns that the administration of US President Barack Obama is failing to provide enough support to Taiwan. While the Republican majority may have welcomed the opportunity to score political points against the administration and voice support for Taiwanese democracy, the panelists raised a much more important question: Is the US honoring its commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA)?
The hearing marks rising concern in the US Congress about the administration letting US commitments to Taiwan silently default through inaction. Last month, 45 US senators petitioned the US Department of State to act on arms sales to Taiwan. In April, Senator Richard Lugar sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urging her to move the Department of State on Taiwan’s outstanding letter of request for F-16s, lest Taiwan’s air force lose all credibility.
Testifying before the committee, Randall Shriver, a former Defense and State Department official, said that the US response to China’s military buildup across the Taiwan Strait was “insufficient,” leading him to question “if the TRA is honored.”
The US Congress passed the TRA in 1979 to ensure that Washington maintained ties with Taipei irrespective of normalizing relations with Beijing. The TRA requires the US to “make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services” as Taiwan requires to “maintain sufficient self-defense capability.” As Chinese military modernization continues apace and more missiles are placed across from Taiwan, Shriver’s question is not an idle one.
In addition to the TRA, the administration of former US president Ronald Reagan clarified US commitments to Taiwan after the Third Joint Communique seemingly committed Washington to ending arms sales gradually at China’s request. Then-assistant secretary of state John Holdridge told Congress that future sales to Taiwan would depend on Beijing’s “fundamental peaceful policy for seeking resolution to the Taiwan question.” If Beijing committed to peace and did not threaten Taiwan, only then would the US reduce sales.
US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently made the situation worse, despite his rhetoric of a stable US security commitment to Asia. Gates said Washington tries to balance its TRA commitments with “Chinese sensitivities,” contravening past US commitments to Taiwan. The panelists frequently cited Gates’ remarks, even though defense officials have since tried to walk them back.
Shriver and his fellow panelists testified that the US’ declining concern for Taiwan goes back at least to the administration of former US president Bill Clinton and cannot be laid on Obama. However, the problem is that the US’ ability to support its commitments to Taiwan may be approaching a point of no return.
For example, on arms sales, president of the US-Taiwan Business Council Rupert -Hammond-Chambers testified that if the F-16 sales do not go through by the end of this year, then the required lead time for manufacture plus the projected closing of the F-16 production line could add further delays to delivery. He further suggested the current delays have stopped the US arms sales process for Taiwan, killing whatever institutional routine could help press future weapons sales forward.
If the US is unwilling or unable to sell F-16s to Taiwan, what hope is there that the US would provide F-35s to Taiwan? Given the steadily rising costs of the F-35 program, could Taiwan afford to buy the F-35s in sufficient numbers to replace its rapidly aging fighter aircraft?
The answer almost certainly is “no.” US concerns that Beijing may walk away from any one, if not all, of the upcoming discussions or official visits with the US suggest Taiwan policy is sublimated to the concerns of the US-China relationship. Taiwan, simply put, is treated as another issue to be managed, not as a relationship of its own.
The ever busier schedule of US-China relations puts pressure on US diplomats to play nice with Beijing to ensure the next meeting goes forward, but with the schedule so full, there can never be a good time to sell weapons to Taiwan — a point Shriver called the “tyranny of the schedule.”
Without an institutionalized process for the arms sales to Taiwan with its own bureaucratic momentum, future sales, like the ones languishing today, will depend on the whims of the sitting US administration to find a good time. Similarly, a routine process would either acclimatize Beijing to US policy or perhaps slow the buildup of forces across the Taiwan Strait to reduce US arms sales.
To combat this lethargy in the US’ Taiwan policy, panelist Nancy Bernkopf Tucker recommended more active and aggressive Congressional oversight of the US’ Taiwan policy, comparable with the early years of the Reagan administration. However, many Congressional members present at the hearing said that the administration failed to appear to justify apparent inaction in the US-Taiwan relationship. If oversight is to become more active, then Congress must do more than complain.
Compelling foreign policy action from Congress is difficult and often requires a political high-wire act, but nothing less will do for Taiwan.
Peter Mattis is a graduate of the security studies program at Georgetown University with experience on China-related issues.
Two weeks ago, Malaysian actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) raised hackles in Taiwan by posting to her 2.6 million Instagram followers that she was visiting “Taipei, China.” Yeoh’s post continues a long-standing trend of Chinese propaganda that spreads disinformation about Taiwan’s political status and geography, aimed at deceiving the world into supporting its illegitimate claims to Taiwan, which is not and has never been part of China. Taiwan must respond to this blatant act of cognitive warfare. Failure to respond merely cedes ground to China to continue its efforts to conquer Taiwan in the global consciousness to justify an invasion. Taiwan’s government
Earlier signs suggest that US President Donald Trump’s policy on Taiwan is set to move in a more resolute direction, as his administration begins to take a tougher approach toward America’s main challenger at the global level, China. Despite its deepening economic woes, China continues to flex its muscles, including conducting provocative military drills off Taiwan, Australia and Vietnam recently. A recent Trump-signed memorandum on America’s investment policy was more about the China threat than about anything else. Singling out the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as a foreign adversary directing investments in American companies to obtain cutting-edge technologies, it said
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
“If you do not work in semiconductors, you are nothing in this country.” That is what an 18-year-old told me after my speech at the Kaohsiung International Youth Forum. It was a heartbreaking comment — one that highlights how Taiwan ignores the potential of the creative industry and the soft power that it generates. We all know what an Asian nation can achieve in that field. Japan led the way decades ago. South Korea followed with the enormous success of “hallyu” — also known as the Korean wave, referring to the global rise and spread of South Korean culture. Now Thailand
RSS