The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) and Taiwan's international status have recently been topics for lively debate. I think the crux of the controversy is the question of how we should understand the strategic implications of the TRA in the international political environment of the 21st century.
The TRA pragmatically states that Taiwan does not fall under the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China, but faced with a democratic Taiwan, mapping out a reasonable way of approving Taiwan's status as a sovereign nation has become urgent.
When the TRA was enacted in 1979, Taiwan was not a democratic nation and China had not yet begun its economic rise. In order to establish diplomatic relations with China while at the same time maintaining substantive relations with Taiwan, the US formulated the TRA, a piece of domestic legislation with the same legal binding force as the three joint Sino-US communiques.
The TRA tells us that the US gives de facto recognition to Taiwan; that it aims at protecting and guaranteeing the interests of Taiwan and the Taiwanese people; and that the US' definition of "one China" is not the same as Beijing's definition of "one China."
This is also one reason why the US keeps repeating that the TRA deals with the framework of relations between the US, China and Taiwan.
Taiwan has transformed itself from an authoritarian regime promoting unification with China to a democracy demanding independence. Democratic self-determination is built on a broad consensus, and the public have many times expressed the wish that Taiwan's future be determined by its 23 million people. This is consistent with the TRA perspective that Taiwan is not under the jurisdiction of China.
In his status as a popularly elected leader, President Chen Shui-bian (
This is tantamount to declaring that Taiwan is a sovereign nation not under the jurisdiction of China.
Faced with the rise of the Chinese hegemony, its ambitions to invade Taiwan are fast becoming clear.
Its attacks on the Taiwanese government through the "Anti-Secession" Law, which legalizes the use of non-peaceful means and assists the military threat against Taiwan, its hollowing out of the Taiwanese economy and its suppression of Taiwan's diplomatic space all violate the TRA, which stipulates that "the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means."
The TRA opposes the use of non-peaceful means to threaten Taiwan's economic and social systems.
If the US continues to hide behind its policy of "strategic ambiguity," or to tolerate Taiwan's pan-blue politicians' actions, which are based on a wish to join up with China and distance themselves from the US, then it will be trapped in domestic controversy over the intent behind the TRA.
Not only that, but with the disappearing trust that Taiwanese people have in the US, the TRA's definition of the cross-strait "status quo" will lose its significance.
All in all, the pragmatic perspective of Taiwan's sovereignty in the 1979 TRA goes beyond the "one China" framework of the KMT and Chinese Communist Party governments at that time. Section 4(b)(1) of the TRA declares the relationship between the status of Taiwan and other diplomatic allies of the US, while section 2(c) makes the promotion of human rights in Taiwan a US goal.
As China's military threat and suppression of Taiwan's international space continue to destroy the international participation of Taiwanese and threatens their basic rights and their ability to determine their own future, the people and governments of the US and Taiwan should return to the TRA's pragmatic perspective in order to guarantee Taiwan's democratic government.
They need to help redress the growing imbalances in the tripartite relationship between the US, China and Taiwan.
It is therefore my hope that Taiwanese voice their support for the president's effort to take Taiwan along the path toward normal statehood and that they will call on the US government to return to the basic pragmatic spirit of the TRA.
Lin Chia-lung is the Democratic Progressive Party secretary-general.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS