Taiwan-US relations are said to be entering a new stage after Washington on Friday released new diplomatic guidelines, but some sensitive issues still require delicate negotiations.
In its announcement, the US Department of State said the new guidelines “liberalize guidance on contacts with Taiwan” and show that the nation is a vibrant democracy, and important security and economic partner. However, the department also reiterated the US’ “one China” policy and used the word “unofficial” twice to describe the relations.
While the US has repeatedly said that its commitment to Taiwan is “rock solid,” Washington is taking steps to bring bilateral relations back into a rules-based order by setting limits to the ecstatic, risky developments under the previous US administration.
After then-US secretary of state Mike Pompeo on Jan. 9 announced the cancelation of previous guidelines shortly before leaving office, Taiwan’s diplomats were excited to see the realization of what they had for decades strived to achieve.
Overseas representative offices posted on social media photographs of meetings with their US counterparts in a third country, while Representative to the US Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴) posted photographs showing meetings with US officials on their premises.
Pompeo’s lifting of limits was thrilling, but also brought about more anxiety.
Over the past three months, Taiwanese lawmakers and commentators have been asking whether diplomats could start raising the national flag on official premises in the US without provoking Washington, as occurred in 2015, and whether the president, vice president, premier, vice premier and ministers of defense and foreign affairs could visit Washington.
The questions remain, as the new guidelines were not publicized, while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the questions were not covered in the document.
Judging from the ministry’s news release yesterday, which said that the new guidelines reflect the closeness of bilateral interactions in the past few years and aim to relax untimely restrictions, it might be inferred that the measures were not so much a breakthrough as a formalization of what has already happened. Nonetheless, the warming of diplomatic ties, although unofficial, might pave the way for tackling other sticking points before the relations can be further formalized.
First and foremost, the possibility of resuming trade talks remains unclear. The Office of the US Trade Representative in a report last week expressed concerns about Taiwan’s maximum residue limits for ractopamine in imported US pork, which it said “inaccurately implies that there is a food safety concern with US pork and pork products” and discourages Taiwanese manufacturers from purchasing them.
While the government has risked its domestic political interests to lift the restrictions on US pork and beef products, restarting talks for a bilateral trade agreement still seems far away.
Meanwhile, although encouraged by the US, Taiwan’s attempts to boost its defense capabilities are still subject to regulations of advanced research and development items. For example, the Ministry of National Defense had to obtain the US’ approval for “red zone” military technologies used in its indigenous submarine development project.
Taiwan has also been hoping to produce its own rockets to launch satellites into space, but pertinent plans were either canceled or restricted, allegedly due to the US’ concerns, given that techniques for making rockets are similar to those for missiles.
As the National Space Organization is to mark its 30th anniversary later this year and a rocket scientist is to become its new director-general, it is intriguing how far the nation’s rocket development might proceed under the reorganized Taiwan-US relations.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants. On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS