Since the inauguration of US President Donald Trump this year, Taiwan has shown deep appreciation for the US’ continued support and friendship. However, observers in Taiwan have noted nuanced, but significant, changes in US language in statements on cross-strait policy, which merit careful consideration by the US Congress and the US Department of State.
In February, the State Department updated its fact sheet on US relations with Taiwan. One paragraph reads: “We oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo. We expect cross-Strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to people on both sides of the Strait.”
While the statement appears neutral and peace-oriented at first glance, it echoes a long-standing narrative weaponized by the Chinese Communist Party. The phrase “acceptable to people on both sides of the Strait” is often exploited by Beijing to deny Taiwan’s distinct identity and legitimate place in the international community, and to frame Taiwan’s future as an internal Chinese matter.
That language can be traced back to the 1972 Shanghai Communique, a document born from Cold War realpolitik, as the US sought to normalize relations with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to counter the Soviet Union.
That communique states: “The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.”
First, that formulation erroneously assumes that all people living in Taiwan are Chinese. In reality, following the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the population that immigrated from China to Taiwan under Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) represented only 15 percent of Taiwan’s population. The majority were native Taiwanese, whose voices and identities were largely ignored.
Second, Taiwan at the time was under martial law, ruled by Chiang’s authoritarian Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime, widely regarded as a military dictatorship. Leaving Taiwan’s future to be decided by “Chinese on both sides” would have meant ceding it to two autocratic parties — the Chinese Communist Party in China and the KMT in Taiwan — without any democratic legitimacy or participation from Taiwanese.
When the US formally established diplomatic relations with the PRC on Jan. 1, 1979, it reaffirmed the principles of the Shanghai Communique in the Joint Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations. Thankfully, on April 10 that same year, Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act to safeguard Taiwan’s interests and provide institutional support for its security.
The act commits the US to provide Taiwan with “defense articles and defense services” necessary to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. More importantly, it states that any non-peaceful effort to determine Taiwan’s future — including through coercion, embargo or blockade — would be considered “a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area” and of “grave concern to the United States,” prompting a presidential and congressional determination of appropriate US response.
In terms of legal standing, the Taiwan Relations Act — passed by Congress as domestic law — carries greater weight than the Three Joint Communiques, which are executive agreements lacking congressional approval or binding legal force.
That context has fundamentally changed. The PRC is now a global authoritarian power seeking to alter the “status quo,” challenge democratic norms and even replace the US as the leading global power. In contrast, Taiwan has undergone a peaceful democratic transformation since the 1990s and is now one of the world’s freest democracies.
The time has come for the US to reassess the relative importance of the Three Joint Communiques versus the Taiwan Relations Act in the broader framework of its China policy. The ambiguous phrase in the State Department fact sheet — “in a manner acceptable to people on both sides of the Strait” — should be reconsidered for the strategic risks it poses.
To democratic Taiwan, the notion that “the future of Taiwan should be decided by the people on both sides of the Strait” is dangerously misleading. The PRC has 1.4 billion people under one-party rule, conditioned from childhood to believe Taiwan is part of China. Taiwan has only 23 million people in a vibrant, pluralistic and democratic society.
A joint decision by “both sides” would effectively allow an authoritarian regime — one that has never allowed dissent, held a referendum or embraced democratic accountability — to override the will of Taiwan’s free citizens.
Imagine if the international community were to tell Israel that its future should be decided jointly with 90 million Iranians, or that Finland’s sovereignty must be negotiated with 146 million Russians. Imagine if, in 1776, the future of the US could not have been unilaterally declared by the 56 delegates of the Continental Congress, but instead required the consent of hundreds of members of the British Parliament. In such a scenario, the US, the greatest nation in human history, would never have been born.
To demand that a democratic entity reach “joint consent” with a vastly larger and disproportionately powerful autocratic nation is undoubtedly a mockery of the US’ founding principles and a profound violation of the principle of democratic self-determination. Therefore, “jointly deciding its future” is itself a semantic trap disguised as neutral language.
When Beijing repeatedly claims that “Taiwan’s future cannot be decided by 23 million Taiwanese alone, but must reflect the will of the entire Chinese people,” we should recognize the real danger of rhetorical annexation. The phrase “decision by people on both sides” is a political trap disguised in neutral language.
Americans, the US Congress and the State Department must re-examine the foundational language of Taiwan-US policy. It is time to retire outdated diplomatic formulas from the Cold War era and construct a principled, modern narrative: Taiwan’s future must be determined solely by the Taiwanese.
Taiwanese deeply appreciate congressional initiatives such as the Taiwan Peace Through Strength Act and the Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act, which would provide much-needed legal clarity and reaffirm the US’ commitments. The bills are important steps toward aligning policy language with democratic principles.
As former US secretary of state Antony Blinken and former US National Security Council Indo-Pacific coordinator Kurt Campbell have emphasized, the future of Taiwan must be resolved peacefully, and with the consent of Taiwanese. Such principles must be clearly reflected in official US documents as a foundation for long-term strategic policy.
In this era of great-power competition, narrative is strategy. Clear, principled language helps safeguard the democratic allies the US has long supported, and prevents semantic traps set by authoritarian adversaries. Taiwan stands ready to work hand-in-hand with the US during Trump’s second term to reaffirm freedom and justice, and together defend the future of human civilization.
Vincent Chen is a senior executive in Taiwan’s information and communications technology industry, and serves as an advisory board member for two prominent Taiwanese think tanks, the Taiwan Thinktank and the Foundation for Future Generations, Taiwan. He was a student leader of the Wild Lily movement during Taiwan’s democratic transition.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS