On May 7, the US House of Representatives passed the Taiwan Assurance Act of 2019 (H.R. 2002). Some in the media have interpreted this to mean that the US is closer to Taiwan than to Israel, or that Washington is about to establish diplomatic ties with Taipei, while some commentators have said that the conflict between the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “Anti-Secession” Law and the will of the US Congress could lead to a crisis, and that the US is in effect forcing Taiwan to spend big money on arms procurements.
To be fair, although the Taiwan Assurance Act is likely to be passed by the US Senate and then signed into law by US President Donald Trump, it mostly restates or makes minor adjustments to the US’ Taiwan Relations Act, the “six assurances,” the Taiwan Travel Act and the annual National Defense Authorization Acts.
There is reason to be optimistic, but people should not be so naive as to believe that diplomacy will be smooth sailing from now on.
In particular, some of the opinions in the Taiwan Assurance Act are more aggressive than the text in other related acts.
Since no one knows whether the White House will actively implement the act, caution is called for.
First, the Taiwan Assurance Act states: “The United States should conduct regular sales and transfers of defense articles to Taiwan in order to enhance its self-defense capabilities.”
“Regular” refers to enforcing something periodically, while the length of the period is determined by the US executive branch. If Washington wants Taipei to procure arms in compliance with the act when there is no need for Taiwan to make such purchases regularly, that might not be favorable for Taiwan.
Next, it states: “It is the policy of the United States to advocate for Taiwan’s meaningful participation in the United Nations, the World Health Assembly, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Criminal Police Organization, and other international bodies, as appropriate, and to advocate for Taiwan’s membership in the Food and Agriculture Organization, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and other international organizations for which statehood is not a requirement for membership.”
Despite the long list of organizations, the statement remains within the scope of the “three noes” policy proposed by then-US president Bill Clinton during his 1998 visit to Shanghai, when he said: “We don’t believe that Taiwan should be a member in any organization for which statehood is a requirement.”
Lastly, the act states that no later than 180 days after its enactment date, the US Department of State shall submit to Congress a review of the department’s guidelines on relations with Taiwan, the 1994 Taiwan Policy Review and the implementation of the Taiwan Travel Act.
If the executive branch were as supportive of Taiwan as the legislative branch, the implementation of the documents and laws would have been reviewed long ago.
Moreover, since the Taiwan Travel Act came into effect, the US has not sent a high-ranking administrative or security official that would imply Taiwan’s sovereignty, showing that Washington is concerned about the CCP and its “one China” principle.
Exactly what does the Taiwan Assurance Act assure Taiwan, and what can it do for the normalization of Taiwan-US relations? It is clearly not something that can be explained with a few simple graphics or a so-called “lazybones’ pack for dummies.”
Huang Kwei-bo is the vice dean of National Chengchi University’s College of International Affairs.
Translated by Eddy Chang
US President Donald Trump last week told reporters that he had signed about 12 letters to US trading partners, which were set to be sent out yesterday, levying unilateral tariff rates of up to 70 percent from Aug. 1. However, Trump did not say which countries the letters would be sent to, nor did he discuss the specific tariff rates, reports said. The news of the tariff letters came as Washington and Hanoi reached a trade deal earlier last week to cut tariffs on Vietnamese exports to the US to 20 percent from 46 percent, making it the first Asian country
As things heated up in the Middle East in early June, some in the Pentagon resisted American involvement in the Israel-Iran war because it would divert American attention and resources from the real challenge: China. This was exactly wrong. Rather, bombing Iran was the best thing that could have happened for America’s Asia policy. When it came to dealing with the Iranian nuclear program, “all options are on the table” had become an American mantra over the past two decades. But the more often US administration officials insisted that military force was in the cards, the less anyone believed it. After
On Monday, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) delivered a welcome speech at the ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum, addressing more than 50 international law experts from more than 20 countries. With an aim to refute the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) claim to be the successor to the 1945 Chinese government and its assertion that China acquired sovereignty over Taiwan, Lin articulated three key legal positions in his speech: First, the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration were not legally binding instruments and thus had no legal effect for territorial disposition. All determinations must be based on the San Francisco Peace
During an impromptu Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) rally on Tuesday last week to protest what the party called the unfairness of the judicial system, a young TPP supporter said that if Taiwan goes to war, he would “surrender to the [Chinese] People’s Liberation Army [PLA] with unyielding determination.” The rally was held after former Taipei deputy mayor Pong Cheng-sheng’s (彭振聲) wife took her life prior to Pong’s appearance in court to testify in the Core Pacific corruption case involving former Taipei mayor and TPP chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲). The TPP supporter said President William Lai (賴清德) was leading them to die on
RSS