When the administration of then-US president Jimmy Carter in 1978 decided to normalize relations with China, Beijing’s principal condition was that Washington terminate diplomatic relations with the Republic of China. Since then, the US-China relationship has increasingly been characterized by friction — if not outright tension — over a host of strategic issues.
At the same time, the US’ connection with Taiwan has steadily grown stronger, even without the benefit of official ties, based on the shared values between the two societies. Both are democratic political systems that cherish human rights and the rule of law, while committed to fostering peace and security in the Indo-Pacific region.
Recent developments have brought the two countries even closer. After Taiwan took action early and effectively to control the then-emerging COVID-19 pandemic, the nation earned the gratitude of Americans by donating millions of masks and other protective equipment. Last year, Taiwan ranked as the US’ ninth-largest trading partner, with two-way trade totaling US$91 billion. An ongoing shortage of advanced integrated circuits also made more Americans aware of the vital importance of Taiwan in the production process for US high-tech manufacturers.
However, without official diplomatic recognition, maintaining a solid and productive bilateral relationship has been a constant challenge. Success has been achieved only because of the two sides’ willingness to depart from traditional international practice to embrace some innovative approaches. After diplomatic ties were terminated in 1979, with inadequate plans in place for a new mechanism to replace them, the US Congress swiftly passed the Taiwan Relations Act to declare its continued interest in Taiwan’s security and ensure that it is treated the same as any other foreign entity under US law.
It is the only piece of legislation ever enacted to specifically govern how the US conducts its relations with another government. Now is the time to extend that spirit of cooperation and innovation to another key aspect of the bilateral relationship: The cultivation of East Asia knowledge, and expertise among US government personnel and other professionals. At one time, before the opening of China to US citizens, almost every young American academic interested in Chinese affairs had spent at least a year or two in Taiwan to study Mandarin or conduct research.
However, in past few decades, most of that language study and research has shifted to China, leaving US government institutions with far fewer Taiwan specialists at a time when the nation is becoming a more important component of the US’ Asia policy. The Taiwan Fellowship Act, which passed the US Senate in a bipartisan vote of 68 to 32 on Tuesday last week, would enable selected US civil servants to live, learn and work in Taiwan for two years. After first studying Mandarin, and the region’s history, culture and political dynamics, they would be assigned to work in a Taiwanese government department alongside Taiwanese counterparts.
The Taiwan Fellowship is a far-reaching initiative that deserves swift passage by the US House of Representatives and implementation this year. At a time when the interests of Taiwan and the US in the Western Pacific are under mounting threats from China, it would serve to underscore US commitment to democratic Taiwan and its region for years to come.
Thomas Gold is professor emeritus in sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. Robert Parker is a retired San Francisco lawyer and investor. From 1979 to 1980, he was chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei and played an instrumental role in the creation of the Taiwan Relations Act. Gold and Parker serve as volunteer advisers to the nonprofit Western Pacific Fellowship Project, which is developing the proposed Taiwan Fellowship program.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS