China's Foreign Ministry should take note of a distinction Senator Charles Percy made in 1982. It is still valid. If it had heeded Percy's words, spokesman Zhu Bangzao (朱邦造) would have issued a more ample statement on Nov. 8. Instead, he stated, "China is willing to work hard with the new US president to push forward the continued development of China-US relations on the basis of the three China-US joint communiques." He should have added "and the Taiwan Relations Act" (TRA).
Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Percy opened an Aug. 17, 1982 oversight hearing by reminding all that the TRA was the law of the land and that the joint communique issued that day was administration policy only. "We have undertaken certain solemn obligations to the people on Taiwan as embodied in the Taiwan Relations Act, overwhelmingly passed by the Congress in 1979. These obligations must be upheld. A policy statement cannot change a public law," Percy stated.
"There may be ambiguity in the communique," Percy continued, "but there can be no ambiguity in implementing the Taiwan Relations Act. We must assure that Taiwan's legitimate defense needs are met, as the Taiwan Relations Act requires of us."
Senator John Glenn was hot during the oversight hearing. He reviewed the history of US relations with Taiwan and the role Congress had played in stiffening US policy. "Three years ago [1979] the Executive Branch appeared before this committee arguing that the United States intended to sell arms to Taiwan indefinitely, but that this need not be mentioned in the legislation we were considering. Administration spokesmen went further and indicated that the president might veto a bill that contained specific arms sales assurances for Taiwan. The Congress failed to blink. In President Reagan's words two years ago, `Clearly the Congress was unwilling to buy the Carter plan, which it believed would have jeopardized Taiwan's security.'"
"The legislative history demonstrates beyond a doubt that the intent of [the TRA] was to ensure that arms sales decisions, albeit prudent and cautious, would be made in Washington -- not Peking [Beijing] or Taipei ? The communique announced today discards that carefully crafted framework -- the heart of the TRA -- in favor of an arms sales formulation negotiated under Chinese threats of a retrogression of US-PRC relations," Glenn continued.
While arms sales decision making was clearly the focus of this oversight hearing, policy creep on US-Taiwan relations was the bigger target of Glenn's concern. "I should also note in passing, that President Reagan's concessions came just two years after candidate Reagan pledged that he `would not impose restrictions which are not required by the Taiwan Relations Act and which contravene its spirit and purpose.'"
"Not only do these restrictions contravene the spirit and purpose of the TRA; they are exactly the sort of PRC imposed conditions we sought to avoid when we drafted the Act," Glenn argued.
Whoever is the next president, Mr Zhu, rest assured that there are more John Glenns in the Senate, ready to keep the administration's feet to the fire and remind them that US policy is based, first and foremost, on the TRA.
Michael J. Fonte is a senior policy analyst for the Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA).
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS