The “six assurances” are alive and well, and have been elevated as a fundamental part of the US’ “one China” policy. Washington is sending a clear strategic signal about strong security cooperation with Taipei. The message includes new moves that reiterate the “assurances” and declassify secret cables to rebut the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) complaints about the Aug. 17, 1982, communique.
The US also clarifies confusion about textual nuances and competing versions of the “assurances,” reiterating the “one China” policy and that it does not recognize Taiwan’s sovereignty.
On the anniversary of the 1982 communique this year, the Chinese embassy in Washington complained about alleged US violations of commitments to gradually reduce arms sales to Taiwan. However, Beijing selectively picks only parts of the mutual understanding, as it has failed to honor its commitment to a peaceful resolution.
The US has not violated the 1982 communique. US President Donald Trump’s approach is consistent with former US president Ronald Reagan’s directions. US commitments have been premised on China’s commitment to peace, but the US has been compelled to adjust its “one China” policy. The changes are in response to China’s increasing threats to Taiwan, as US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs David Stilwell said on Monday at a Heritage Foundation event.
The US government’s fresh approach to its long-standing “one China” policy remains focused on the process of finding a peaceful resolution, Stilwell said, adding that it does not target any outcome concerning Taiwan’s future status. The message serves an underlying objective. The US is bolstering deterrence against Beijing’s belligerence toward Taiwan.
Stilwell also reiterated the “six assurances” that Reagan gave to then-president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) through then-American Institute in Taiwan director James Lilley. On the day of the Heritage Foundation event, the US government also issued two secret cables from 1982 on the “assurances” and arms sales that US National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien declassified on July 16.
This is not the first step to declassify the records from 1982. On Aug. 30 last year, as one of his final actions as then-national security adviser, John Bolton declassified Reagan’s secret memo about the 1982 communique.
On Tuesday, a US Department of Defense report to the US Congress said that China’s multidecade military buildup has eroded or negated many of Taiwan’s military advantages toward Beijing. The report also reiterates the US’ “one China” policy, in reference to the US’ Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of 1979 and the three US-China communiques.
Nevertheless, this statement seems outdated. After Stilwell’s speech and O’Brien’s declassification of the cables, statements by the US government concerning the “one China” policy’s foundation should also cite the “six assurances.”
This is a an evolution of policy. The “assurances” are not new. I and others have written versions of them. Without explicitly citing them, then-US assistant secretary of State John Holdridge pointed them out in his testimony to the US Congress on the day after the 1982 communique.
For the first time since that congressional hearing, a US official, Stilwell, not only reaffirmed, but also reiterated the “assurances.” The subsequent US release of the texts by the US National Security Council clarifies further confusion.
The US government under former US president Barack Obama conveyed mixed messages. Then-assistant secretary of state Kurt Campbell testified at a hearing of the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs in October 2011 that the “Taiwan Relations Act plus the so-called ‘six assurances’ and three communiques form the foundation of our overall approach.” Campbell reaffirmed the “assurances” verbally during the hearing, but not all of them, and he did not mention them in his written testimony that he prepared in advance.
In April 2014, then-assistant secretary of state Daniel Russel did not reaffirm the “assurances” in response to US Senator Marco Rubio at a hearing of the US Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs.
What are the “six assurances”? What are issues and misunderstandings about them?
The declassified cable is dated Aug. 17, 1982. Then-US secretary of state George Shultz authorized Lilley to reply to a request by then-vice minister of foreign affairs Fredrick Chien (錢復). However, Lilley had already conveyed Reagan’s “six assurances” a month before, on July 14, in the form of a blind memo with no letterhead or signature to Chien. Thus, the “assurances” predate the 1982 communique. In that context, Reagan assured Taipei that Washington would not abandon Taiwan during secret negotiations with Beijing.
In other words, the issue of Lilley’s message entails whether it is only a historical document or a commitment that bound future US policy — a reading that Taiwan prefers. This issue involves the tenses of the verbs.
The cable confirms the wording of the “assurances.” First, the US has not agreed to set a date for ending arms sales to Taiwan; second, it has not agreed to consult with the PRC on arms sales to Taiwan; third, it will not play any mediation role between Taipei and Beijing; fourth, it has not agreed to revise the TRA; fifth, it has not altered its position regarding sovereignty over Taiwan; and sixth, it will not exert pressure on Taiwan to enter into negotiations with the PRC.”
Another issue concerns whether the US has declared a preferred status of Taiwan that involves sovereignty. There have been different versions of the fifth “assurance.” Chien translated his version into Chinese as “the US cannot support the PRC’s position regarding sovereignty over Taiwan.” Some people have claimed another false version using the sovereignty “of” Taiwan (vs. “over”).
The US did not state its position on sovereignty as it relates to Taiwan’s status and did not state that Taiwan has sovereignty. Stilwell’s statement continues this avoidance of a stance on sovereignty.
Should any of the assurances be adjusted to address current conditions? For example, should Congress revise the intent or letter of the TRA in new legislation? This is part of a debate about strategic ambiguity or greater clarity in the US’ commitment to help Taiwan’s defense.
What could be a helpful role for the US in cross-strait dialogue? What are Taiwan’s assurances to the US today? Is Taiwan succeeding or failing to implement and fund its concept for asymmetric warfare in self-defense to improve its “declining defensive advantages,” as the Pentagon reported?
The TRA has allowed ambiguity for Washington to be as clear or flexible as needed. US policymakers are signaling clarity and continuity in the latest deterrent moves.
Shirley Kan is an independent security specialist.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS