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.
On March 22, 2023, at the close of their meeting in Moscow, media microphones were allowed to record Chinese Communist Party (CCP) dictator Xi Jinping (習近平) telling Russia’s dictator Vladimir Putin, “Right now there are changes — the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years — and we are the ones driving these changes together.” Widely read as Xi’s oath to create a China-Russia-dominated world order, it can be considered a high point for the China-Russia-Iran-North Korea (CRINK) informal alliance, which also included the dictatorships of Venezuela and Cuba. China enables and assists Russia’s war against Ukraine and North Korea’s
After thousands of Taiwanese fans poured into the Tokyo Dome to cheer for Taiwan’s national team in the World Baseball Classic’s (WBC) Pool C games, an image of food and drink waste left at the stadium said to have been left by Taiwanese fans began spreading on social media. The image sparked wide debate, only later to be revealed as an artificially generated image. The image caption claimed that “Taiwanese left trash everywhere after watching the game in Tokyo Dome,” and said that one of the “three bad habits” of Taiwanese is littering. However, a reporter from a Japanese media outlet
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
RSS