Following his breakthrough trip to China in 1972, President Richard Nixon had intended to move quickly toward formal recognition of Beijing, but domestic scandal forced his resignation two years later, and the moment passed. China fell into disorder and a successional struggle following the death of Mao (毛澤東) in 1976.
Detente with Moscow began to weaken as the Soviet Union continued its aggressive behavior in Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia, exacerbated by the Party leader Leonid Brezhnev’s declining health. The Sino-Soviet rift, which began in the late fifties, had disintegrated into border clashes and ideological feuding by the late seventies. Mao’s successor, Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), continued the hostile policy toward China’s northern neighbor. Thus it seemed natural for the US to finally formalize reality by establishing formal diplomatic relations with Beijing under President Jimmy Carter as of January 1, 1979.
Though this didn’t come as a complete shock to Taipei, it was nonetheless a major blow to the island state, which had been hemorrhaging formal diplomatic partners to China already for some time. The Carter Administration, focused on a hostile attitude toward Moscow, decided to establish diplomatic ties with Beijing, to reflect the warming nature of the bilateral relationship.
Taiwan was almost an afterthought, from the Carter White House’s perspective. The US Embassy on Chung Shan Road was closed, and the staff of the mission began informal meetings at the home of the former Deputy Chief of Mission. Washington had given relatively little thought to what would come next with Taipei, though it did leave its diplomatic staff in place for the time being.
Fortunately for Taiwan, it retained many friends in the US, including a well-organized pro-Taiwan group in the Congress. Working with friends of Taiwan in the State Department ranks, as well as academics and a sympathetic Taiwan-American population, Congress quickly came up with draft legislation that became known as the Taiwan Relations Act, which passed Congress that March and was signed into law by President Carter on April 10, 1979.
The TRA, now approaching its fortieth anniversary, has proved an enduring piece of legislation, sustained by continuing Congressional and public support. The TRA formalized the existence of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT). It also provided for military arms sales as well as an informal structure of contacts between Washington and Taipei, that aimed to maintain the same spirit of close relations long enjoyed prior to the break in relations.
I showed up in Taipei in April, 1981, a young Foreign Service Officer excited to be returning to a place where I had lived in as a boy nearly twenty years earlier. I found the American staff there still quite cautious not to press the boundaries of formality in our dealings with local authorities. But the election of old Taiwan friend Ronald Reagan to the White House, and his appointment of veteran Sinologist Jim Lilley as second Director of AIT, began a shift toward more cordial and expansive dealings with our old friends on the island. Our local counterparts also found creative ways to sustain vital relations, as always bolstered by a sympathetic US Congress.
Much has changed in the ensuing four decades. Taiwan has prospered economically and matured into a modern democratic society, one of the most open in all of East Asia. The economy has moved through several stages, ensuring its competitiveness both regionally and globally. Under Deng Xiaoping, China has emerged as one of the largest economies in the world, sustained by high growth rates despite the regime’s reluctance to match that with meaningful political liberalization.
Successive US Administrations of both parties have been careful to reassure our Taiwan friends of the ongoing commitment to the island’s stability and security, both in word and deed. Under the TRA, Washington has provided defensive weaponry and training to the Taiwan military, while also maintaining a robust military presence in the region. Despite the recent rise of Chinese military power, America and its allies retain considerable means of checking any PRC aggression toward the island, should Beijing be so foolish as to attempt such.
The vitality of US-Taiwan relations over the past four decades, even in the absence of traditional diplomatic ties, is a remarkable success. AIT is formally moving into a new office complex in Nei Hu (內湖) this April that can accommodate the 500 odd officers and staff of the institute. These numbers reflect significant growth over that time period. Every US Administration during this time has honored Washington’s commitments to Taiwan’s safety and security, buttressed by an extremely supportive Congress and a legion of supporters in American society.
Many of us harbor long overdue hope that China will join the modern world politically by opening up its society. That could well facilitate a more realistic attitude toward Taiwan, as well as possibly ease concerns over unprovoked aggression from the mainland. But until and unless the cross-strait calculus shifts, our friends in Taiwan can rest assured that the bipartisan support for the island and its democratic people will continue. The TRA has proved a solid template for supporting this robust relationship, and I see no reason to doubt its efficacy into the foreseeable future.
Ambassador Stephen M. Young (ret.) lived in Kaohsiung as a boy over 50 years ago, and served in AIT four times: as a young consular officer (1981-’82), as a language student (1989-’90), as Deputy Director (1998-2001) and as Director (2006-’9). He visits often and writes regularly about Taiwan matters. Young was also US Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan and Consul General to Hong Kong during his 33-year career as a foreign service officer. He has a BA from Wesleyan University and a PhD from the University of Chicago.
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