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 Chinese diplomat’s violent threat against Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi following her remarks on defending Taiwan marks a dangerous escalation in East Asian tensions, revealing Beijing’s growing intolerance for dissent and the fragility of regional diplomacy. Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday posted a chilling message on X: “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off,” in reference to Takaichi’s remark to Japanese lawmakers that an attack on Taiwan could threaten Japan’s survival. The post, which was later deleted, was not an isolated outburst. Xue has also amplified other incendiary messages, including one suggesting
Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday last week shared a news article on social media about Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan, adding that “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off.” The previous day in the Japanese House of Representatives, Takaichi said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute “a situation threatening Japan’s survival,” a reference to a legal legal term introduced in 2015 that allows the prime minister to deploy the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The violent nature of Xue’s comments is notable in that it came from a diplomat,
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
RSS