Strait Talk is an excellent book, particularly for those who want to understand the turbulent triangular relationship between the US, Taiwan and China, and how it has been influenced by various people over the past six decades. The author is Nancy Bernkopf Tucker, who is professor in the history department and the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and a diplomatic historian who specializes in US-East Asian relations. In this book, published in February, she covers events and policy debates from the days of the Truman presidency all the way through the end of the Bush administration in 2008.
Tucker provides an incredible amount of research — drawing from both interviews and archives — and the result is a highly readable account of the intricacies of US policy towards Taiwan, as it moved from recognition of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime in Taipei to “informal” relations with “the people of Taiwan” after the Carter administration switched official diplomatic recognition of China from the KMT’s Republic of China (ROC) to Beijing’s People’s Republic of China (PRC).
An important contribution of the book is that it shows how politicians and diplomats from former US presidents Harry Truman to George W. Bush shaped policies, and how US policy toward China and Taiwan varied significantly, depending on the background, knowledge and political insights of the people involved. Tucker is most unsparing in her criticism of former US president Richard Nixon and his national security advisor, Henry Kissinger.
“Nixon and Kissinger viewed Taiwan as expendable, as less valuable than the strategic and political advantages that a new relationship with the PRC would secure. As a result, they decided to give Beijing what it wanted in order to make a deal. In the process, they misled China’s rulers into believing that the US would step aside and allow Taiwan to collapse. When that did not happen, Beijing, like Taipei, felt betrayed.
“In their eagerness to play the China card, Nixon and Kissinger undermined the effectiveness and durability of their initiative. They underestimated support for Taiwan and ignored Taiwan’s capacity for meaningful political reform, which would provide the wherewithal for survival. Their shortsightedness, virtually guaranteed by excessive secrecy, bred mistrust everywhere. This collateral damage to US integrity, diplomacy, and democracy, at home and abroad, constitutes the most serious indictment of the policies pursued.”
Tucker’s research also shows that all through the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s, there was widespread support for “dual representation” in the UN, both inside successive US administrations as well as among governments of other countries, including the UK and the USSR. Tucker cites the 1959 Conlon Report, written by political scientist Robert Scalapino, which called for diplomatic relations with Beijing, but also for recognizing the ROC as the Republic of Taiwan. She describes how in the 1970s then-UN ambassador George H.W. Bush fought tenaciously for such an outcome. Interestingly, the USSR also expressed support — albeit briefly — for Taiwan’s independence in early 1973. However, all these efforts ran into one major roadblock: Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) stubborn refusal to compromise on representation by the PRC in the UN, which was eventually the main reason for Taiwan’s increasing international isolation.
Tucker also describes vividly how, in the run-up to normalization of relations with China, US officials tended to make policy towards Taiwan without adequate thought or planning, and without consulting or giving any warning to Taipei. The decision to normalize relations with the PRC in December 1978 was reached in total secrecy — even Congress was left out. This pattern would repeat itself over subsequent decades: Former US president Bill Clinton embraced the “Three Noes” (no to Taiwan’s independence, no to “two Chinas” and no to Taiwan’s membership in international organizations requiring statehood) in 1998, and in December 2003, Bush — standing next to Chinese Premier Wen Jiaobao (溫家寶) — criticized former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and told him that the US interpreted as a “change of the status quo” and thus opposed a planned referendum that asked China to publicly renounce the use of force against Taiwan and withdraw missiles aimed at
the country.
Tucker leads readers through fascinating chapters on the shaping of the Taiwan Relations Act and Taiwan’s subsequent transition to democracy, the 1996 missile crisis and the shift in Clinton’s position that followed in 1997 and 1998 and which eventually resulted in his trip to China and pronouncement of the “Three Noes.”
A main theme of Tucker’s book is that Taiwan’s democratization is a “new” element in the equation. It has strengthened the rationale of supporting Taiwan’s independence. At the same time, to many of those involved in the Nixon/Kissinger effort of normalizing relations with China, it is also perceived as adding “unwelcome volatility in the cross-strait situation,” in the words of Chas Freeman, former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia and a founding member of the US-China Policy Foundation.
Another theme is that the lack of adequate communication between the US and Taiwan has led to misunderstandings and distrust. In her conclusion, Tucker pleads for “diplomacy at higher, more authoritative levels” to break down existing barriers between the two countries — such as the present insistence of the US administration that no officials above the rank of Deputy Assistant Secretary meet Taiwanese counterparts — that have led to confusion and misapprehension regarding each country’s position. She argues that “American national interests, defined as much by values as by security or strategic goals, render sacrifice of Taiwan unacceptable. The US must do more than merely confront and be party to a Strait impasse. For itself and for Taiwan and China, the US has a political and moral obligation to contribute to a solution.”
Overall, Tucker’s book makes an excellent contribution to better knowledge and understanding of US policy towards Taiwan. The only area where I disagree with Tucker’s analysis is in her assessment of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) new administration. Both in the beginning and at the end of the book, the author presents an all-too-rosy picture — which she calls “the politics of hope” — of Ma’s rapprochement with China, underestimating the problems this might pose for America’s political, economic and security interests in East Asia, as well as the increase of political tension it generates within Taiwan.
Gerrit van der Wees is the editor of ‘Taiwan Communique.’
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), and the country’s other political groups dare not offend religious groups, says Chen Lih-ming (陳立民), founder of the Taiwan Anti-Religion Alliance (台灣反宗教者聯盟). “It’s the same in other democracies, of course, but because political struggles in Taiwan are extraordinarily fierce, you’ll see candidates visiting several temples each day ahead of elections. That adds impetus to religion here,” says the retired college lecturer. In Japan’s most recent election, the Liberal Democratic Party lost many votes because of its ties to the Unification Church (“the Moonies”). Chen contrasts the progress made by anti-religion movements in
Taiwan doesn’t have a lot of railways, but its network has plenty of history. The government-owned entity that last year became the Taiwan Railway Corp (TRC) has been operating trains since 1891. During the 1895-1945 period of Japanese rule, the colonial government made huge investments in rail infrastructure. The northern port city of Keelung was connected to Kaohsiung in the south. New lines appeared in Pingtung, Yilan and the Hualien-Taitung region. Railway enthusiasts exploring Taiwan will find plenty to amuse themselves. Taipei will soon gain its second rail-themed museum. Elsewhere there’s a number of endearing branch lines and rolling-stock collections, some
Last week the State Department made several small changes to its Web information on Taiwan. First, it removed a statement saying that the US “does not support Taiwan independence.” The current statement now reads: “We oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side. We expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” In 2022 the administration of Joe Biden also removed that verbiage, but after a month of pressure from the People’s Republic of China (PRC), reinstated it. The American
This was not supposed to be an election year. The local media is billing it as the “2025 great recall era” (2025大罷免時代) or the “2025 great recall wave” (2025大罷免潮), with many now just shortening it to “great recall.” As of this writing the number of campaigns that have submitted the requisite one percent of eligible voters signatures in legislative districts is 51 — 35 targeting Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus lawmakers and 16 targeting Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers. The pan-green side has more as they started earlier. Many recall campaigns are billing themselves as “Winter Bluebirds” after the “Bluebird Action”
RSS