The US’ Taiwan policy act (TPA) cleared a US Senate committee review on Wednesday last week. US Senator Bob Menendez, who chairs the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, described the TPA as “the most comprehensive restructuring of US policy towards Taiwan since the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979.”
In mid-July, a scheduled markup of the act was postponed at the request of the Republican Party to allow more time for review. Last month, the White House requested that the committee “slow walk” the review process.
US Senator Chris Murphy of the Democratic Party expressed reservations over several sections of the act, probably under pressure from the White House. The bill was postponed again as the US Senate prioritized a motion to allow Finland and Sweden to join NATO.
The White House is clearly uneasy about the bill. US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan expressed reservations over several sections of the TPA, while Menendez said that the committee had already engaged in repeated dialogue with the White House and reached a consensus.
Following further discussions with the White House, Menendez stated that efforts were made to eliminate concerns, but that the TPA still packed a punch. Predictably, after the bill had passed committee review, Menendez stated that several symbolic clauses had been amended, but that the TPA remained unchanged in substance.
The postponement of the TPA for a second time last month coincided with the visit to Taiwan by US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Days prior to Pelosi’s visit, US President Joe Biden held a telephone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), during which Xi allegedly requested that Biden block Pelosi’s visit.
A report by the Washington Post revealed that Pelosi had told the White House that only a direct request from the president, or Taiwan retracting its invitation, would make her consider canceling the visit.
Biden did not make a direct request to Pelosi. It must have been embarrassing for Biden to have had it publicly revealed that his administration had put pressure on Pelosi in an effort to curry favor with Xi, and to know that it could affect the Democratic Party’s prospects at the midterm elections in November.
This behind the scenes information reveals that there might be something to the rumor that Pelosi sent a telegram to Taiwanese Representative to the US Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴) to confirm that the invitation had not been revoked. Taipei stood with Pelosi, refused to back down and her historic visit went ahead. This initially sparked fears that the White House might slow the TPA’s passage to calm the situation.
However, China’s extreme reaction to Pelosi’s visit fired up the international community and created an unprecedented level of support for Taiwan.
China has escalated its attacks against the TPA, turning it into a touchstone issue. Supporting or opposing the TPA has thus become a proxy for US toughness or weakness against China. Xi’s intervention therefore had an indirect effect on the act’s passage of its first reading by the committee. Committee members voted 17 to 5 in favor of the TPA in a bipartisan vote. Murphy and US Senator Ed Markey, who was a member of Pelosi’s delegation to Taiwan, voted against the TPA, which could open the door to further negotiations with the executive branch.
There is still a long way to go before the TPA is written into law, and its passage happens to coincide with midterm elections in the US, local elections in Taiwan and the Chinese Communist Party’s 20th National Congress. The bill’s future is far from certain.
Chen Yung-chang is a company manager.
Translated by Edward Jones
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS