The Taiwan Travel Act
US President Donald Trump on March 16 signed the Taiwan Travel Act into law, a not insignificant change to the US-China-Taiwan relationship. It is the most recent change to policy governing the political relations between these three countries, but it has been a work in progress for years.
The act had a somewhat long road to adoption and has been introduced in the US Congress several times through different vehicles. The language has evolved, but the intent has not: to facilitate high-level contact and visits between US and Taiwanese officials.
The act has its genesis in several pieces of legislation introduced over the years as stand-alone legislation or as part of larger bills by US representatives Steve Chabot, Kerry Bentivolio and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, among others, including: H. Con. Res. 136 expressing the sense of congress regarding high-level visits to the US by democratically elected officials of Taiwan, HR 2918 Taiwan Policy Act of 2011, HR419 Taiwan Policy Act of 2013 and H. Res. 185 Taiwan Travel Act.
In each iteration, it was stated that it should be a policy of the US to encourage visits between Cabinet-level officials from both nations and to permit those exchanges to occur through the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office and other instrumentalities established by Taiwan.
It should be noted that these bills all establish a “sense of Congress” that high-level exchanges should be encouraged, but there is nothing contained in the language that would require such exchanges to be arranged. The most recent iteration that was signed into law is no different.
Most of these legislative initiatives were met with varying degrees of success, but none made it to the US president’s desk, and most were either not considered on the House of Representatives floor or never made it out of committee. The most recent success was the adoption of an amendment offered by Bentivolio to the FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act, which contained nearly identical language to the Taiwan Travel Act. In fact, the amendment had been introduced previously by Bentivolio as H. Res. 185 Taiwan Travel Act.
Though it seems like a minor change, it can have substantial impact. Cooperation has been hindered by the “look, but don’t touch” approach afforded by current adherence to the “one China” policy, precedent and department-level policies. However, nothing in the Taiwan Travel Act violates any standing agreements the US has with China or Taiwan — it is simply an incremental step toward increased dialogue and intergovernmental exchanges. Fortunately, in this case, the US has a president who seems willing to forgo historic precedent and open more direct channels with the Taiwanese government.
Trump has certainly shown he is willing to buck precedent and make changes as he sees fit. Regardless of your opinion of him or his politics, expanding the relationship with one of the only successful democracies in East Asia is a move in the right direction, regardless of China’s protests.
If Trump’s signature is worth the paper it is written on, he will honor the intent of the Taiwan Travel Act and instruct the appropriate agencies to adopt policies that will promote and carry out exchanges at higher levels than we have seen since the 1970s. Considering his recent pick of John Bolton for national security adviser, such action may be on the horizon.
Cole Ginther
Washington
Nonsense, childish bullying
After he lifted presidential term limits, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) attempted to interpret the cross-strait “status quo” by himself, dispatched fighter jets over Taiwanese airspace and claimed Taiwan as his territory. Now he has become even greedier, acting like the king of the world by demanding that international airlines follow his orders.
The Chinese Civil Aviation Administration told US carriers that they should remove any information suggesting that Taiwan, Hong Kong or Macau are not part of China.
In response, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Saturday last week said: “This is Orwellian nonsense and part of a growing trend by the Chinese Communist Party to impose its political views on American citizens and private companies.”
Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Geng Shuang (耿爽) countered that “foreign companies operating in China should respect China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, abide by Chinese laws and respect the Chinese people’s national feelings.”
However, China cannot provide any proof of when and how Taiwan became an “inalienable part” of its territory. After the Qing emperor ceded Taiwan to Japan in 1895, Taiwan was not related to China any more. Taiwan was still part of Japanese territory in 1949 when the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was founded. Japan renounced all rights, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores under the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which was signed in 1951 and took effect on April 28, 1952. Taiwan has never been part of PRC territory.
American Institute in Taipei Chairman James Moriarty last week delivered a speech titled “The US and Taiwan: An Enduring Partnership” at Stanford University. He condemned China’s Orwellian nonsense of demanding that Web sites of international organizations and companies not list Taiwan as a country.
“It’s unjustified and does not accomplish anything. It’s bullying, and it’s childish,” he said.
Moriarty pointed out that stability in the Taiwan Strait is essential and the US is committed to supporting Taiwan. However, that commitment alone will not secure Taiwan against the backdrop of an increasingly complex cross-strait environment. Taiwan must do its part to invest in capabilities that deter aggression.
John Hsieh
Hayward, California
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