Despite constant pressure from China to erode Taiwan’s international standing, the US has always seen the value of furthering its ties with Taiwan, a small but vibrant democracy in Asia.
In 1946, the US and Republic of China signed the Taiwan Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation to formalize cooperation between the two. And in more recent years, relations between the two have deepened substantially. In October 2012, Taiwan was included in the US’ visa waiver program, which allows Taiwanese passport holders to remain in the US for up to 90 days without a visa.
To date, only 38 countries enjoy this privilege, most of which are developed nations and longtime partners of the US. Then, last year, the White House decided to support Taiwan’s joining of the International Civil Aviation Organization, and the decision was backed by the US Congress.
On the economic front, according to the Office of the US Trade Representative, Taiwan is currently the US’ 12th-largest trading partner. Last year, two-way trade between them was valued at about US$64 billion in total.
These are reliable indicators that the US-Taiwan relationship is warming, right?
However, on Aug. 8, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania quietly handed down a judgement that rode roughshod over the US government’s policy on Taiwan and any goodwill from the friendship-building activities above.
In a judgement seemingly worded to provoke, the district court refused to recognize an arbitral decision made by a Taiwanese arbitration association because Taiwan did not sign an international convention on recognition of arbitral awards.
This rationale runs directly counter to the US Supreme Court’s call to end “the longstanding judicial hostility to arbitration agreements.”
Furthermore, the convention cited by the district court, the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, was conceived to promote arbitration around the world; its spirit is inclusive, not exclusive.
And whatever happened to the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation? It, according to several US federal district court precedents, should be a valid basis for the US to recognize Taiwanese arbitral awards.
There are altogether 50 territories, including Taiwan, that have not yet signed the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. If US courts refuse to recognize arbitral awards from those countries, the consequences might be that US arbitral awards would be denied in kind. This kind of tit-for-tat would put international commerce on a slippery slope.
Foreign companies, especially those from nations that have not signed the convention, might be chilled by the US’ attitude toward arbitration. Likewise, US companies, concerned about their rights in an international commercial dispute, would be wary of doing business abroad.
What the federal district court has done in one single stroke is marginalize one of the most dynamic democracies in Asia. Taiwan could not sign the convention because it was not a member of the UN.
To this day, Taiwan is still not a UN member, and that is because of China’s intervention, not because it has chosen to remain aloof. Furthermore, Taiwan, as a responsible member of the international community, understands arbitration is a more expeditious alternative to litigation, and has revised its Arbitration Act to include the same criteria for recognizing foreign arbitral awards as in the convention at issue.
Its embrace of international comity should be applauded, not disparaged. To imply that an arbitration award from Taiwan cannot be enforced in the US owing to non-UN membership is equivalent to shutting Taiwan out of the international community. The court’s practice of exclusion is damaging to the reputation of Taiwanese arbitration, detrimental to US-Taiwan relations and, above all, unfair.
Thanks to the judgement, arbitration in Taiwan is now a joke worldwide. Parties that previously found the professionalism and efficiency of Taiwanese arbitration appealing would likely take their dispute elsewhere now.
The court’s diminishment of Taiwan has already stirred strong reaction in the nation. Many indignant Taiwanese have taken to the blogosphere to vent their feelings. There are also voices in the US online community questioning the soundness of the court’s judgement.
Taiwan is a staunch ally of the US in the Pacific, but the recent federal district court judgement has served a smart slap in the face of Taiwan and is trying its loyalty.
Chien-Fei Li is a recent Harvard Law graduate and Soochow University School of Law adjunct lecturer. Wei-Jen Chen is a recent Harvard Law graduate and an SJD student at the National Taiwan University School of Law.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS