The US last week took action to remove most of the diplomatic red tape around US-Taiwan relations. While there have been adjustments in State Department “Guidelines on Relations with Taiwan” and other guidance before, no administration has ever so thoroughly dispensed with them. It is a step in the right direction.
Of course, when there is a policy of formally recognizing one government (the People’s Republic of China or PRC) and not another (the Republic of China or ROC), officials from the top of government down need a systematic way of operationalizing the distinction. They cannot just make it up as they go.
So, yes, there will continue to be a distinction. Even in the Secretary of State’s announcement, there is no hint of doing away with the American one-China policy altogether. To the contrary, the statement references “unofficial” relations with Taiwan and the special role played by the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) in this regard.
The response from the incoming Biden team has had a similar focus, reiterating both the one-China policy and the Taiwan Relations Act as the basis for a way forward.
So ultimately, there will be guidance. The only question is what it will be. Congress mandated that diplomatic restrictions be reviewed as part of the Taiwan Assurance Act, originally sponsored by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and signed into law just two weeks before Pompeo’s policy announcement.
Congress made clear what it thought the review should take into account, including due consideration for Taiwan’s democracy and the peaceful resolution of cross-straits issues. The suggestions were very broad. One thing is certain, however: Congress expects a liberalization. Going backwards is not acceptable.
Here are a few ideas for what should permanently change about the way the US interacts with Taiwan.
Give Taiwan government officials routine and consistent access to US government buildings, including White House offices and State Department facilities, both at home and abroad. Requiring Taiwan officials to meet US officials off-site is not giving “due consideration” to the democratic nature of Taiwan’s system — as called for in the new law. It is humiliating.
Remove restrictions on the use of Twin Oaks, Taiwan’s would-be diplomatic residence in Washington, D.C. It may be here that the pettiness of the diplomatic guidelines have been clearest, the permissible displays of Taiwan’s flag, for instance. The State Department should allow TECRO to use Twin Oaks as it sees fit, including, if Taipei desires, as the official residence of its Representative. It should also allow State Department officials to attend events and meetings there.
Allow high-ranking officials from Taiwan to visit the US, and Washington, in particular. It makes no sense that Taiwan’s Minister of National Defense is not permitted in Washington, D.C., or that the President and Vice President of Taiwan are not permitted in the US at all, except for transit visits. The State Department should also widen the aperture for visits by its officials to Taiwan. It is good that the Undersecretary of State for economic affairs visited last year. The Biden administration should continue the practice. It should also send the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and the deputy assistant secretary principally responsible for Taiwan.
Now, the more cautious will insist that these things are wasted diplomatic effort. They denigrate cabinet-level visits to Taiwan the same way, insisting that “Washington should be focused on real policy, instead.” The problem is that these voices are just as cautious when it comes to those other “real” areas, too.
The diplomatic regulations matter because they set the baseline for US-Taiwan relations. If you are worried about what kind of letterhead government officials use in correspondence with their Taiwan counterparts, chances are you are probably sensitive to Beijing’s objection to a US-Taiwan Free Trade Agreement or sale of jet fighters to Taiwan.
Secretary of State Pompeo is right to scrap current guidelines governing US-Taiwan relations, and Congress is right to call for a general revision. As Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim Risch (R-Idaho) said when the Taiwan Assurance Act passed, the US needs a relationship with Taiwan that reflects today’s — not 1979’s — geopolitical situation.
Whether the timing of the State Department move is right depends on what you expect from the Biden administration. If you think it is headed back to Obama’s China policy, you should be worried. Anthony Blinken and company will just reverse it all and then some — Congress be damned. If you think, as I do, that times have changed for Democrats and Republicans alike, and that neither has a monopoly on concern for Taiwan, then the timing is perfect. Reforming the policy — for the good — cannot be put off.
Walter Lohman is director of the Heritage Foundation’s Asian Studies Center.
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