Following his breakthrough trip to China in 1972, President Richard Nixon had intended to move quickly toward formal recognition of Beijing, but domestic scandal forced his resignation two years later, and the moment passed. China fell into disorder and a successional struggle following the death of Mao (毛澤東) in 1976.
Detente with Moscow began to weaken as the Soviet Union continued its aggressive behavior in Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia, exacerbated by the Party leader Leonid Brezhnev’s declining health. The Sino-Soviet rift, which began in the late fifties, had disintegrated into border clashes and ideological feuding by the late seventies. Mao’s successor, Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), continued the hostile policy toward China’s northern neighbor. Thus it seemed natural for the US to finally formalize reality by establishing formal diplomatic relations with Beijing under President Jimmy Carter as of January 1, 1979.
Though this didn’t come as a complete shock to Taipei, it was nonetheless a major blow to the island state, which had been hemorrhaging formal diplomatic partners to China already for some time. The Carter Administration, focused on a hostile attitude toward Moscow, decided to establish diplomatic ties with Beijing, to reflect the warming nature of the bilateral relationship.
Taiwan was almost an afterthought, from the Carter White House’s perspective. The US Embassy on Chung Shan Road was closed, and the staff of the mission began informal meetings at the home of the former Deputy Chief of Mission. Washington had given relatively little thought to what would come next with Taipei, though it did leave its diplomatic staff in place for the time being.
Fortunately for Taiwan, it retained many friends in the US, including a well-organized pro-Taiwan group in the Congress. Working with friends of Taiwan in the State Department ranks, as well as academics and a sympathetic Taiwan-American population, Congress quickly came up with draft legislation that became known as the Taiwan Relations Act, which passed Congress that March and was signed into law by President Carter on April 10, 1979.
The TRA, now approaching its fortieth anniversary, has proved an enduring piece of legislation, sustained by continuing Congressional and public support. The TRA formalized the existence of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT). It also provided for military arms sales as well as an informal structure of contacts between Washington and Taipei, that aimed to maintain the same spirit of close relations long enjoyed prior to the break in relations.
I showed up in Taipei in April, 1981, a young Foreign Service Officer excited to be returning to a place where I had lived in as a boy nearly twenty years earlier. I found the American staff there still quite cautious not to press the boundaries of formality in our dealings with local authorities. But the election of old Taiwan friend Ronald Reagan to the White House, and his appointment of veteran Sinologist Jim Lilley as second Director of AIT, began a shift toward more cordial and expansive dealings with our old friends on the island. Our local counterparts also found creative ways to sustain vital relations, as always bolstered by a sympathetic US Congress.
Much has changed in the ensuing four decades. Taiwan has prospered economically and matured into a modern democratic society, one of the most open in all of East Asia. The economy has moved through several stages, ensuring its competitiveness both regionally and globally. Under Deng Xiaoping, China has emerged as one of the largest economies in the world, sustained by high growth rates despite the regime’s reluctance to match that with meaningful political liberalization.
Successive US Administrations of both parties have been careful to reassure our Taiwan friends of the ongoing commitment to the island’s stability and security, both in word and deed. Under the TRA, Washington has provided defensive weaponry and training to the Taiwan military, while also maintaining a robust military presence in the region. Despite the recent rise of Chinese military power, America and its allies retain considerable means of checking any PRC aggression toward the island, should Beijing be so foolish as to attempt such.
The vitality of US-Taiwan relations over the past four decades, even in the absence of traditional diplomatic ties, is a remarkable success. AIT is formally moving into a new office complex in Nei Hu (內湖) this April that can accommodate the 500 odd officers and staff of the institute. These numbers reflect significant growth over that time period. Every US Administration during this time has honored Washington’s commitments to Taiwan’s safety and security, buttressed by an extremely supportive Congress and a legion of supporters in American society.
Many of us harbor long overdue hope that China will join the modern world politically by opening up its society. That could well facilitate a more realistic attitude toward Taiwan, as well as possibly ease concerns over unprovoked aggression from the mainland. But until and unless the cross-strait calculus shifts, our friends in Taiwan can rest assured that the bipartisan support for the island and its democratic people will continue. The TRA has proved a solid template for supporting this robust relationship, and I see no reason to doubt its efficacy into the foreseeable future.
Ambassador Stephen M. Young (ret.) lived in Kaohsiung as a boy over 50 years ago, and served in AIT four times: as a young consular officer (1981-’82), as a language student (1989-’90), as Deputy Director (1998-2001) and as Director (2006-’9). He visits often and writes regularly about Taiwan matters. Young was also US Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan and Consul General to Hong Kong during his 33-year career as a foreign service officer. He has a BA from Wesleyan University and a PhD from the University of Chicago.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US