On Thursday last week, the US House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing called “Why Taiwan Matters” to vent Congressional concerns that the administration of US President Barack Obama is failing to provide enough support to Taiwan. While the Republican majority may have welcomed the opportunity to score political points against the administration and voice support for Taiwanese democracy, the panelists raised a much more important question: Is the US honoring its commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA)?
The hearing marks rising concern in the US Congress about the administration letting US commitments to Taiwan silently default through inaction. Last month, 45 US senators petitioned the US Department of State to act on arms sales to Taiwan. In April, Senator Richard Lugar sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urging her to move the Department of State on Taiwan’s outstanding letter of request for F-16s, lest Taiwan’s air force lose all credibility.
Testifying before the committee, Randall Shriver, a former Defense and State Department official, said that the US response to China’s military buildup across the Taiwan Strait was “insufficient,” leading him to question “if the TRA is honored.”
The US Congress passed the TRA in 1979 to ensure that Washington maintained ties with Taipei irrespective of normalizing relations with Beijing. The TRA requires the US to “make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services” as Taiwan requires to “maintain sufficient self-defense capability.” As Chinese military modernization continues apace and more missiles are placed across from Taiwan, Shriver’s question is not an idle one.
In addition to the TRA, the administration of former US president Ronald Reagan clarified US commitments to Taiwan after the Third Joint Communique seemingly committed Washington to ending arms sales gradually at China’s request. Then-assistant secretary of state John Holdridge told Congress that future sales to Taiwan would depend on Beijing’s “fundamental peaceful policy for seeking resolution to the Taiwan question.” If Beijing committed to peace and did not threaten Taiwan, only then would the US reduce sales.
US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently made the situation worse, despite his rhetoric of a stable US security commitment to Asia. Gates said Washington tries to balance its TRA commitments with “Chinese sensitivities,” contravening past US commitments to Taiwan. The panelists frequently cited Gates’ remarks, even though defense officials have since tried to walk them back.
Shriver and his fellow panelists testified that the US’ declining concern for Taiwan goes back at least to the administration of former US president Bill Clinton and cannot be laid on Obama. However, the problem is that the US’ ability to support its commitments to Taiwan may be approaching a point of no return.
For example, on arms sales, president of the US-Taiwan Business Council Rupert -Hammond-Chambers testified that if the F-16 sales do not go through by the end of this year, then the required lead time for manufacture plus the projected closing of the F-16 production line could add further delays to delivery. He further suggested the current delays have stopped the US arms sales process for Taiwan, killing whatever institutional routine could help press future weapons sales forward.
If the US is unwilling or unable to sell F-16s to Taiwan, what hope is there that the US would provide F-35s to Taiwan? Given the steadily rising costs of the F-35 program, could Taiwan afford to buy the F-35s in sufficient numbers to replace its rapidly aging fighter aircraft?
The answer almost certainly is “no.” US concerns that Beijing may walk away from any one, if not all, of the upcoming discussions or official visits with the US suggest Taiwan policy is sublimated to the concerns of the US-China relationship. Taiwan, simply put, is treated as another issue to be managed, not as a relationship of its own.
The ever busier schedule of US-China relations puts pressure on US diplomats to play nice with Beijing to ensure the next meeting goes forward, but with the schedule so full, there can never be a good time to sell weapons to Taiwan — a point Shriver called the “tyranny of the schedule.”
Without an institutionalized process for the arms sales to Taiwan with its own bureaucratic momentum, future sales, like the ones languishing today, will depend on the whims of the sitting US administration to find a good time. Similarly, a routine process would either acclimatize Beijing to US policy or perhaps slow the buildup of forces across the Taiwan Strait to reduce US arms sales.
To combat this lethargy in the US’ Taiwan policy, panelist Nancy Bernkopf Tucker recommended more active and aggressive Congressional oversight of the US’ Taiwan policy, comparable with the early years of the Reagan administration. However, many Congressional members present at the hearing said that the administration failed to appear to justify apparent inaction in the US-Taiwan relationship. If oversight is to become more active, then Congress must do more than complain.
Compelling foreign policy action from Congress is difficult and often requires a political high-wire act, but nothing less will do for Taiwan.
Peter Mattis is a graduate of the security studies program at Georgetown University with experience on China-related issues.
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