Former US president Jimmy Carter’s legacy regarding Taiwan is a complex tapestry woven with decisions that, while controversial, were instrumental in shaping the nation’s path and its enduring relationship with the US.
As the world reflects on Carter’s life and his recent passing at the age of 100, his presidency marked a transformative era in Taiwan-US-China relations, particularly through the landmark decision in 1978 to formally recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legal government of China, effectively derecognizing the Republic of China (ROC) based in Taiwan. That decision continues to influence geopolitical dynamics and Taiwan’s unique role on the global stage.
One of Carter’s most controversial actions was the severance of formal diplomatic ties with the ROC. By recognizing the PRC and ending the mutual defense treaty with Taiwan, Carter aimed to realign US foreign policy to better address the geopolitical realities of the late 20th century. The move was a culmination of efforts by multiple administrations, including those of former US presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, to normalize relations with Beijing.
Carter’s decision was not taken lightly; it reflected a calculated shift designed to counterbalance Soviet influence during the Cold War. Recognizing the PRC allowed the US to engage with a significant global player, fostering a strategic partnership that served as a counterweight to the Soviet Union’s growing power. That diplomatic recalibration was critical in shaping the global balance of power, but it came at the cost of Taiwan’s formal status as a recognized US ally.
Despite the apparent abandonment of Taiwan, Carter’s administration ensured that the nation’s security and autonomy were not entirely forsaken. In 1979, the US Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), a legislative framework that continues to underpin Taiwan-US relations. The TRA provided for the continuation of unofficial ties between the two entities, including the sale of defensive arms to Taiwan, and a commitment to maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.
The act was seen as a direct response to Carter’s derecognition of Taiwan, reflecting congressional concerns about the nation’s vulnerability in the face of growing PRC assertiveness. By ensuring the legal and political commitment of the US to Taiwan’s security, the TRA mitigated the immediate risks posed by the severance of formal ties and established a durable framework for Taiwan-US relations.
Carter’s foreign policy approach was deeply influenced by his emphasis on human rights and moral diplomacy. While his decision to recognize the PRC was often criticized as a betrayal of Taiwan, it can also be viewed as an attempt to foster a more stable and cooperative global order.
Carter’s administration recognized the PRC’s potential as a significant partner in addressing global challenges, including arms control, economic development and the reduction of Cold War tensions. That recognition did not negate Taiwan’s importance, but rather repositioned it within a broader strategic framework. Taiwan’s subsequent transformation into a vibrant democracy, and its growing economic and cultural ties with the global community are a testament to the resilience of the nation’s people and its ability to adapt to shifting geopolitical realities.
One of the defining aspects of Carter’s legacy is his moralistic approach to foreign policy, which often sought to prioritize long-term global stability over short-term political gains.
His administration’s decision to normalize relations with the PRC was framed as a necessary step to reduce the risk of conflict and enhance international cooperation. While that decision created significant challenges for Taiwan, it also opened opportunities for the nation to redefine its identity and role on the global stage. Taiwan’s development into a thriving democracy and a leading global economy is, in part, a reflection of its ability to navigate the complex realities created by Carter’s policy shift.
Critics of Carter’s Taiwan policy often highlight the perceived abandonment of a key ally. The termination of the Taiwan-US mutual defense treaty and the cessation of formal diplomatic ties left Taiwan vulnerable to potential aggression from China.
Those actions were viewed by some as a capitulation to Beijing’s demands, and a betrayal of American values of loyalty and support for democratic allies. However, a closer examination of the policy reveals a more nuanced picture. Carter’s administration worked to ensure that the substantive elements of the Taiwan-US relationship were preserved, even in the absence of formal recognition.
The TRA’s provisions for arms sales and security assurances underscored the enduring commitment of the US to Taiwan’s defense and stability, ensuring that the nation remained capable of resisting external threats.
Moreover, Carter’s decision to recognize the PRC must be understood within the context of the broader Cold War strategy. By engaging with Beijing, Washington was able to drive a wedge between China and the Soviet Union, thereby weakening the cohesion of the communist bloc.
That strategic realignment had significant implications for global security and stability, contributing to the eventual decline of Soviet influence. While Taiwan bore the brunt of the immediate consequences of that policy shift, the long-term benefits of a stable US-China relationship have had a profound effect on the global order.
The legacy of Carter’s Taiwan policy is also reflected in the nation’s resilience and adaptability in the face of diplomatic isolation. Taiwan’s transition from an authoritarian regime to a robust democracy in the decades following Carter’s presidency is a testament to its ability to leverage the opportunities created by the TRA and other international partnerships.
Today, Taiwan stands as a beacon of democracy in the Asia-Pacific region, with a strong economy and a dynamic civil society. That transformation underscores the nation’s capacity to thrive despite the challenges posed by its unique international status.
Carter’s legacy regarding Taiwan is not without its critics, but it also offers valuable lessons for contemporary policymakers. The delicate balance between engaging with major powers such as China and supporting smaller, democratic allies such as Taiwan remains a central challenge in US foreign policy. Carter’s approach highlights the importance of strategic pragmatism, and the need to prioritize long-term stability and cooperation over short-term political considerations. His emphasis on maintaining substantive ties with Taiwan, even in the absence of formal recognition, serves as a model for navigating complex geopolitical relationships in an increasingly interconnected world.
As the world mourns the passing of Carter, his impact on Taiwan stands as a multifaceted legacy, reflecting the complexities of balancing moral principles, strategic imperatives and the realities of international diplomacy. While his decision to derecognize the ROC and recognize the PRC was a controversial and deeply consequential shift, it also laid the groundwork for Taiwan’s evolution into a resilient and dynamic democracy. The TRA, a direct response to Carter’s policy, continues to serve as a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations, ensuring the nation’s security and autonomy in the face of ongoing challenges.
Carter’s legacy is a reminder of the difficult choices inherent in global leadership, and the enduring importance of fostering stability and cooperation in a complex and ever-changing world.
Y. Tony Yang is an endowed professor and associate dean at George Washington University.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS