On March 16, US President Donald Trump signed the Taiwan Travel Act into law. The act allows all US military and government officials to travel to Taiwan and visit its government, and it represents the US Congress’ first legal interpretation of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) since it was enacted 39 years ago.
The TRA stipulates that the US should “maintain the capacity ... to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, social or economic system of the people on Taiwan,” but what constitutes such danger and whether the US should interfere is at the discretion of US president; Taiwan’s government and people cannot take the initiative.
For decades, China has threatened Taiwan via missile tests, its “Anti-Secession” Law, declaring an air defense identification zone, dispatching fighter jets to encircle the nation, infiltrating it, stealing confidential data and undermining Taiwanese sovereignty whenever it could.
These actions alarmed the public, but US presidents have done nothing, with the exception of sending an aircraft carrier during the 1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis.
The US Congress believed this was the result of a lack of direct communication between senior US and Taiwanese officials, and that a law was needed to authorize US national security officials, military officers and administration officials to visit Taiwan for discussion whenever necessary, while also allowing high-ranking Taiwanese government officials to visit the US and meet their counterparts in the Department of State and other agencies.
To prevent awkward incidents, such as former Taiwanese president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) receiving a US envoy in pajamas to protest his treatment during a transit stop in Honolulu on the way to Costa Rica in 1994, the Taiwan Travel Act stipulates that US departments must receive high-level Taiwanese officials “under conditions which demonstrate appropriate respect for the dignity of such officials.”
The preamble to the Taiwan Travel Act says the TRA has never prohibited exchanges between senior US and Taiwanese officials, and that relations “have suffered from insufficient high-level communication due to the self-imposed restrictions.”
Moreover, while the US recognizes that there is “one China,” the TRA does not contravene the principle of absolute territorial sovereignty in international law, nor does it contravene the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States or the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations adopted by the UN General Assembly, because Taiwan is not part of China.
Nevertheless, while the Taiwan Travel Act refers to Taiwan as “country,” it does not recognize Taiwan or the Republic of China as an independent state.
Although the TRA stipulates that Taiwan should be treated as a country in US law, in international law Taiwan is only a temporary international de facto entity. A decision to become an independent nation should be decided by the public.
According to the TRA, the US is legally required to preserve and enhance the rights of all Taiwanese, including the right to self-determination and establishing an independent nation.
The binding power of the Taiwan Travel Act is even stronger: Every 180 days, “the Secretary of State shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a report on travel by United States executive branch officials to Taiwan,” which expands Congress’ rights to be involved in Taiwan’s defense.
Chris Huang is a professor at National Tsing Hua University’s Institute of Law for Science and Technology.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS