Not long ago, the Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA) published an article discussing the Taiwan Travel Act’s legal status, legislative speed and cross-party support in the US. As expected, after the bill moved from a US Senate committee to the Senate floor on Feb. 7, it was discussed and voted on within three weeks — passing unanimously — thus completing its passage through the US Congress.
Presented to the White House on March 5, US President Donald Trump is expected to sign it into law.
Because members of the US House of Representatives only serve two-year terms, if a bill does not complete the legislative process — clearing the House and Senate — within two years, it must start from the beginning in a new session.
An average of 15,000 bills are proposed in each session, but fewer than 5 percent make it to a Senate committee for discussion and a vote. The percentage of those passed into law on the Senate floor is even lower — the act making it through Congress was no forgone conclusion.
Some might wonder why the act was able to complete the legislative process in a quick 13 months.
FAPA in 2004 proposed a congressional resolution calling for the lifting of restrictions keeping top Taiwanese and US officials from visiting each other. In 2015, it continued the spirit of the resolution by proposing the act, lifting it to the legal status of a domestic law.
The “grassroots diplomacy” finally succeeded thanks to non-stop action over the past 14 years. The passing of the act by the Senate on Feb. 28 — the anniversary of the 228 Incident in Taiwan — had double significance.
Why did FAPA insist on pushing through the Taiwan Travel Act? People might not know that there are many unwritten restrictions in the US Department of State’s handling of Taiwan-US relations, including ones that treat Taiwan unfairly.
For example, then-Taipei mayor Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was in 1999 allowed to meet with members of the US Congress freely in Washington, but after Chen was elected president the next year, he was only allowed to transit through US cities designated by the department, and was warned not to meet with any Americans during transits.
At the time, like in the movies, a heavyweight US representative managed to reach Chen’s suite by taking the hotel’s freight elevator.
Similarly, during US transits, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) was told not to make her schedule public, leave her hotel at will or take any interviews with the Taiwanese media. The Taiwanese journalists who traveled with Tsai were not permitted to stay at her hotel. Nobody would believe that such poor treatment was given to Taiwan’s elected president — it was simply unfair.
After more than 10 years of effort, the act is a signature away from becoming law. Of course, this does not mean that Tsai can visit Washington right after Trump signs the bill.
However, the act has three implications: It will improve and normalize Taiwan-US relations; it will strengthen trust between the two nations; and the US will treat Taiwan more fairly.
The American Institute in Taiwan is set to open its new office building in Taipei’s Neihu District (內湖) in June, and optimism is high that the US will send a high-level delegation to the opening.
One day, maybe the Taiwanese president will walk into the White House or US Capitol Building on behalf of Taiwanese.
FAPA will not cease its efforts to promote Taiwan in the US Congress, and to improve and maintain Taiwan-US relations. Let us march for Taiwan this spring.
Mike Kuo is president of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs.
Translated by Eddy Chang
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS