According to US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Christensen, although everybody uses the name Taiwan, if the Democratic Progressive Party were to use the name in an official political or legal framework such as a referendum, it would constitute changing the name of the country.
The US is of the opinion that this would be an intentional step toward changing the "status quo." And that is why Christensen says that he sees no room for compromise between the US and Taiwan on a UN referendum.
Christensen recently talked about the US' bottom line. He said the US was strongly opposed to any referendum, as its "potential downsides ... for Taiwan and US interests are potentially large," and "the benefits for Taiwan's international status are non-existent."
He talked about the harm a UN referendum might do Taiwan. This could be seen as implying that provoking China might have serious consequences for Taiwan. If Taiwan was considered to have provoked China by means of a referendum, the US may feel its promise to intervene in the event of an attack from China as stipulated in the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) would be invalidated.
Christensen thinks the proposed referendum would not help Taiwan apply for UN membership, but would limit the nation's international space. It would not win Taiwan any sympathy internationally; on the contrary, it could contribute to Beijing's power to limit Taiwan's international space and cause countries sympathetic to Taiwan to distance themselves from it. There was a warning in his speech that showed between the lines.
But why would a referendum on UN membership hurt the interests of the US and Taiwan, and force the US to strongly oppose it? The first reason is, as Christensen said in his speech, that the US' Taiwan Strait policy from 1979 has been beneficial to both Americans and Taiwanese.
"[A]s a friend of Taiwan, as an indispensable supporter of its democracy and freedoms, the United States ranks second to none," he said, because this fits with US interests in East Asia. What he didn't say was, if Taiwan provoked China, for example, by holding a referendum on applying for UN membership, this would not be in the US' interest, and so it might make an exception to its policy.
As to the second reason, Christensen said there was "absolutely no foundation to the assertion that the US coordinates its Taiwan policy with Beijing."
China and the US are working together in trying to maintain the "status quo" in the Taiwan Strait. Both want to prevent Taiwanese independence and encourage cross-strait talks, but that is not the same as the US coordinating its Taiwan policy with China. However, it cannot be denied that China influences Taiwan through the US, and Beijing is putting increasing pressure on Washington.
The underlying meaning in Christensen's words is that if Taiwan continues to push for holding the referendum, this would harm US interests, and the possibility of the US and China coordinating their Taiwan policy cannot be ruled out.
Christensen says "if the referendum goes forward unchanged, we anticipate that Taiwan's perceptive, intelligent citizens will see through the rhetoric and make a sound judgment that the referendum does not serve their interests because it will be fundamentally harmful to Taiwan's external relations."
In a situation when diplomacy doesn't cut it, a direct appeal to the Taiwanese public, although it can't stop a referendum, could dampen enthusiasm for it, diminish its legitimacy and cause it to fail.
Edward Chen is a professor at Tamkang University's Graduate Institute of American Studies.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
Lockheed Martin on Tuesday responded to concerns over delayed shipments of F-16V Block 70 jets, saying it had added extra shifts on its production lines to accelerate progress. The Ministry of National Defense on Monday said that delivery of all 66 F-16V Block 70 jets — originally expected by the end of next year — would be pushed back due to production line relocations and global supply chain disruptions. Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) said that Taiwan and the US are working to resolve the delays, adding that 50 of the aircraft are in production, with 10 scheduled for flight
Victory in conflict requires mastery of two “balances”: First, the balance of power, and second, the balance of error, or making sure that you do not make the most mistakes, thus helping your enemy’s victory. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made a decisive and potentially fatal error by making an enemy of the Jewish Nation, centered today in the State of Israel but historically one of the great civilizations extending back at least 3,000 years. Mind you, no Israeli leader has ever publicly declared that “China is our enemy,” but on October 28, 2025, self-described Chinese People’s Armed Police (PAP) propaganda
Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday last week shared a news article on social media about Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan, adding that “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off.” The previous day in the Japanese House of Representatives, Takaichi said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute “a situation threatening Japan’s survival,” a reference to a legal legal term introduced in 2015 that allows the prime minister to deploy the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The violent nature of Xue’s comments is notable in that it came from a diplomat,
China’s third aircraft carrier, the Fujian, entered service this week after a commissioning ceremony in China’s Hainan Province on Wednesday last week. Chinese state media reported that the Fujian would be deployed to the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea and the western Pacific. It seemed that the Taiwan Strait being one of its priorities meant greater military pressure on Taiwan, but it would actually put the Fujian at greater risk of being compromised. If the carrier were to leave its home port of Sanya and sail to the East China Sea or the Yellow Sea, it would have to transit the
RSS