Hubbry Logo
Taiwan Relations ActTaiwan Relations ActMain
Open search
Taiwan Relations Act
Community hub
Taiwan Relations Act
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Taiwan Relations Act
Taiwan Relations Act
Taiwan Relations Act
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Taiwan Relations Act
Great Seal of the United States
Long titleAn act to help maintain peace, security, and stability in the Western Pacific and to promote the foreign policy of the United States by authorizing the continuation of commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, and for other purposes.
Acronyms (colloquial)TRA
Enacted bythe 96th United States Congress
EffectiveApril 10, 1979
Citations
Public lawPub. L. 96–8
Statutes at Large93 Stat. 14
Codification
Titles amended22 U.S.C.: Foreign Relations and Intercourse
U.S.C. sections created22 U.S.C. ch. 48 § 3301 et seq.
Legislative history
  • Introduced in the House as "United States-Taiwan Relations Act" (H.R. 2479) by Clement J. Zablocki (D–WI) on February 28, 1979
  • Committee consideration by House Foreign Affairs
  • Passed the House on March 13, 1979 (345–55)
  • Passed the Senate on March 14, 1979 (90–6)
  • Reported by the joint conference committee on March 24, 1979; agreed to by the House on March 28, 1979 (339–50) and by the Senate on March 29, 1979 (85–4)
  • Signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on April 10, 1979

The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA; Pub. L. 96–8, H.R. 2479, 93 Stat. 14, enacted April 10, 1979) is a United States law that outlines how the U.S. maintains unofficial ties with Taiwan after recognizing the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China in 1979. Enacted on April 10, 1979, the law allows the U.S. to continue economic, cultural, and security relations with Taiwan. It also permits arms sales to help Taiwan maintain its self-defense and states that any non-peaceful effort to decide Taiwan’s future would be a serious concern for the United States. The Act remains a key part of U.S. policy toward Taiwan.

Background

[edit]

At The Third Plenum in 1978, Deng Xiaoping became the paramount leader of the People's Republic of China (PRC), definitively ending Maoist rule and beginning the reform era of Chinese history. During his speech at the plenum, he outlined a new Chinese foreign policy, whereby the Soviet Union—not the United States, as in the past—was identified as the main national security threat to China. During this time, China regarded itself as in a "united front" with the U.S., Japan, and western Europe against the Soviets.[1] and thus established relations with the United States, China also supported American Operation Cyclone actions in Communist Afghanistan and leveled a military expedition against Vietnam, America's main antagonist in Southeast Asia. In exchange, the United States abrogated its mutual defense treaty (SAMDT) with the Republic of China (ROC).

The ROC government mobilized the China Lobby in the United States to lobby Congress for the swift passage of an American security guarantee for the island.[2][3] Taiwan could appeal to members of Congress on many fronts: anti-communist China sentiment, a shared wartime history with the ROC, Beijing's human rights violations (despite committing violations of its own) and its curtailment of religious freedoms.[1][4]

Senator Barry Goldwater and other members of the United States Congress challenged the right of President Jimmy Carter to cancel SAMDT unilaterally, which the US had signed with the ROC in December 1954 and was ratified by the U.S. Senate in February 1955. Goldwater and his co-filers of the US Supreme Court case Goldwater v. Carter argued that the President required Senate approval to take such an action of termination, under Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution, and that by not doing so, President Carter had acted beyond the powers of his office. The case ultimately was dismissed as non-justiciable and left open the constitutional question regarding a president's authority to dismiss a treaty unilaterally.[5]

The Act was passed by both chambers of Congress and signed by President Carter in 1979 after the breaking of relations between the US and the ROC. Congress rejected the U.S. State Department's proposed draft and replaced it with language that has remained in effect since 1979. The TRA is intended to maintain commercial, cultural, and other relations through the unofficial relations in the form of a nonprofit corporation incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia, the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), without official government representation or formal diplomatic relations.[6] The Act entered retroactively into force, effective January 1, 1979.

Provisions

[edit]

Definition of Taiwan

[edit]

The act does not recognize the terminology of "Republic of China" after 1 January 1979, but uses the terminology of "governing authorities on Taiwan". Geographically speaking and following the similar content in the earlier defense treaty from 1955, it defines the term "Taiwan" to include, as the context may require, the island of Taiwan (the main Island) and the Pescadores (Penghu). Of the other islands or archipelagos under the control of the Republic of China, Kinmen, the Matsus, etc., are left outside the definition of Taiwan.[7]

De facto diplomatic relations

[edit]

The act authorizes de facto diplomatic relations with the governing authorities by giving special powers to the AIT to the level that it is the de facto embassy, and states that any international agreements made between the ROC and U.S. before 1979 are still valid unless otherwise terminated. One agreement that was unilaterally terminated by President Jimmy Carter upon the establishment of relations with the PRC was the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty.

The TRA provides for Taiwan to be treated under U.S. laws the same as "foreign countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities", thus treating Taiwan as a sub-sovereign foreign state equivalent. The act provides that for most practical purposes of the U.S. government, the absence of diplomatic relations and recognition will have no effect.[8]

Military provisions

[edit]
See also: List of US arms sales to Taiwan

The TRA does not guarantee or relinquish the U.S. intervening militarily if the PRC attacks or invades Taiwan, as its primary purpose is to ensure that the Taiwan policy will not be changed unilaterally by the U.S. president and ensure any decision to defend Taiwan will be made with the consent of the Congress. The act states that "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability" and "shall maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan".[9] However, the decision about the nature and quantity of defense services that America will provide to Taiwan is to be determined by the President and Congress. America's policy has been called "strategic ambiguity," and it is designed to dissuade Taiwan from a unilateral declaration of independence, and to dissuade the PRC from unilaterally unifying Taiwan with the PRC.[citation needed]

The TRA further stipulates that the United States will "consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States".

The TRA requires the United States to have a policy "to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character" and "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan".

Successive U.S. administrations have sold arms to Taiwan despite demands from the PRC that the U.S. follow Three Joint Communiqués and the U.S. government's proclaimed One-China policy.

Reaction and reaffirmation

[edit]

The TRA's passage caused Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping to begin viewing the United States as an insincere partner willing to abandon its previous commitments to China.[10]

Reagan administration

[edit]
See also: Six Assurances

The PRC aligned itself with the Third World countries rather than with the United States or the Soviet Union, engaging itself in various movements such as nuclear non-proliferation that would allow it to critique the superpowers.[1] In the August 17th communique of 1982, the United States agreed to reduce arms sales to Taiwan. However, it also declared that it would not formally recognize PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan, as part of the Reagan administration's Six Assurances offered to Taipei in 1982.

Clinton administration

[edit]

In the late 1990s, the United States Congress passed a non-binding resolution stating that relations between Taiwan and the United States will be honored through the TRA first. This resolution, which puts greater weight on the TRA's value over that of the three communiques, was signed by President Bill Clinton.[11][12] Both chambers of Congress have repeatedly reaffirmed the importance of the TRA.[13]

Since 2000

[edit]

A July 2007 Congressional Research Service Report confirmed that U.S. policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan.[14] The PRC continues to view the TRA as "an unwarranted intrusion by the United States into the internal affairs of China".[15] The United States has continued to supply Taiwan with armaments and China has continued to protest.[16]

Bipartisan affirmation (2016)

[edit]

On 19 May 2016, one day before Tsai Ing-wen assumed the democratically elected presidency of the Republic of China, former U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), former chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and co-chair of the Senate Taiwan Caucus, introduced a concurrent resolution reaffirming the TRA and the "Six Assurances" as cornerstones of United States–Taiwan relations.[17][18][19]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Taiwan Relations Act

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Taiwan Relations Act (Pub. L. 96-8), enacted by the and signed into law by President on April 10, 1979, with retroactive effect from January 1, 1979, provides the statutory basis for maintaining unofficial but substantive relations between the and in the wake of the U.S. government's termination of mutual with the Republic of China (governing ) and the establishment of formal ties with the . The Act responds directly to the 1978 U.S.-China Joint Communiqué, which acknowledged the PRC's position that there is but including , while asserting that the people of the maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial ties with the people of . Codified primarily at 22 U.S.C. §§ 3301–3316, it prioritizes the preservation of 's security and de autonomy against , declaring any non-peaceful effort—including force, boycott, or embargo—to determine 's future a threat to the security of the Western Pacific region and a matter of grave concern to the . Central to the Act's framework is the directive for the executive branch to provide Taiwan with defensive articles and services through the (AIT), a nonprofit entity established to handle quasi-diplomatic functions in lieu of an embassy, thereby sustaining arms sales, economic cooperation, and people-to-people exchanges without formal diplomatic status. It requires the President to maintain the capacity of the to resist any resort to force or coercion that would jeopardize Taiwan's social or economic system, while mandating prompt notification to of any such threats and authorizing consultations on appropriate responses. The legislation reaffirms U.S. commitment to Taiwan's and ensures that existing treaties and international agreements remain in effect unless terminated per their terms, underscoring a policy of strategic deterrence rooted in the empirical reality that Taiwan's stability underpins broader security against expansionist pressures from the mainland. Over four decades, the Act has defined U.S. policy amid persistent tensions, enabling billions in arms transfers—such as F-16 fighters and Patriot missiles—to bolster Taiwan's defenses, while navigating disputes with the PRC over interpretations of U.S. "strategic ambiguity" regarding direct intervention in a cross-strait conflict. Controversies have centered on its clash with the framework, including PRC objections to U.S. arms sales as violations of the 1982 Joint Communiqué limiting such transfers, and domestic U.S. debates over escalating commitments amid rising military threats, such as the PRC's gray-zone tactics and amphibious buildup. Despite these frictions, the TRA's enduring provisions have facilitated Taiwan's economic resilience and democratic governance, serving as a causal bulwark against forcible unification without precipitating outright .

Historical Background

Pre-1979 US-Republic of China Alliance

Following the retreat of the Republic of China (ROC) government to in December 1949 after its defeat in the by communist forces, the initially adopted a policy of strategic ambiguity toward the island, withholding direct military commitments amid concerns over broader Asian engagements. The outbreak of the in June 1950 prompted a reevaluation, as the administration of President deployed the U.S. Seventh Fleet to the to prevent a communist of , viewing the ROC as a potential anti-communist ally against the (), which had aligned with the and supported North Korean aggression. This shift positioned as a frontline bulwark in U.S. strategy to contain expansionism and Soviet influence in the Western Pacific, with the ROC's Nationalist forces seen as a to Mao Zedong's regime despite their internal . The cornerstone of the pre-1979 U.S.-ROC alliance was the Mutual Defense Treaty signed on December 3, 1954, and effective March 3, 1955, which committed both parties to consult on threats to peace and security in the West Pacific and to take action against armed attacks on their forces, territories, or vessels. In transmitting the treaty to the , President emphasized its defensive nature, aimed at deterring PRC aggression amid the (1954–1955), where communist artillery bombarded ROC-held islands; the treaty explicitly covered and the Pescadores but excluded other offshore islands unless jointly determined. U.S. commitments included defending from invasion, reinforced by the Formosa Resolution of January 1955, which authorized presidential use of armed forces to protect and related positions. The alliance encompassed extensive military cooperation, with the providing billions in from 1950 onward, including grants for , , and to modernize ROC forces against potential PRC amphibious assaults. The U.S. established the in December 1954, maintaining several bases—such as those for air and naval operations—and stationing thousands of troops, peaking at around 9,000 personnel by the early , to coordinate exercises and . Economic complemented these efforts, totaling approximately $1.4 billion from 1950 to 1965, supporting land reforms, , and to stabilize the ROC economy and reduce reliance on U.S. subsidies, thereby enhancing its viability as a non-communist model in . This partnership framed the ROC as an essential partner in encircling communist , with U.S. basing rights and flows underscoring Taiwan's strategic value until diplomatic shifts in the late .

Shift to People's Republic of China Recognition

On December 15, 1978, President announced that the would formally recognize the (PRC) as the sole legal government of all effective January 1, 1979, thereby terminating diplomatic relations with the Republic of (ROC) on and closing the U.S. embassy in . This shift included the unilateral abrogation of the 1954 Mutual Defense between the and the ROC, which had obligated mutual assistance in case of armed attack; Carter provided notice of termination, with the treaty expiring one year later on December 31, 1979, despite the treaty's provisions requiring mutual agreement for changes. The decision reflected diplomatic aimed at countering Soviet influence amid the , prioritizing strategic alignment with the PRC over the established alliance with the ROC, which controlled but represented only a portion of pre-1949 Chinese territory. The policy change built on the 1972 Shanghai Communiqué from President Nixon's visit to , in which the U.S. acknowledged that "all Chinese on either side of the maintain there is but and that is a part of ," without endorsing PRC sovereignty claims, thereby laying groundwork for eventual normalization under a "" framework. However, the Carter administration's adoption of this framework overlooked the PRC's lack of historical or effective control over , where the ROC government had administered the island since 1945 following Japan's surrender, and ignored the PRC's unsubstantiated assertions of unified absent empirical or consent from 's population. Critics, including legal scholars, argued that the move constituted a premature concession, as the PRC's communist regime had never demonstrated legitimate authority over , potentially undermining U.S. commitments without reciprocal PRC restraint. Immediately following recognition, PRC leader Deng Xiaoping's January 1979 visit to the featured rhetoric affirming the PRC's intent to reunify by force if necessary, including statements reserving the right to "liberate" the island and rejecting U.S. arms sales as interference. This aggressive posture, coupled with the PRC's February 1979 invasion of shortly after normalization, highlighted the causal risks of the U.S. shift: by derecognizing the ROC without securing firm PRC commitments on peaceful resolution, the policy arguably emboldened Beijing's expansionist aims rather than deterring them, as evidenced by ongoing military threats across the . Such outcomes underscored the limitations of when applied to regimes with unproven territorial claims and histories of coercion, prioritizing short-term geopolitical gains over long-term stability in the region.

Enactment Amid Congressional Pushback

Following President Jimmy Carter's December 1978 announcement of derecognizing the Republic of China on in favor of the , effective January 1, 1979, moved swiftly to draft legislation countering perceived executive overreach in abandoning longstanding U.S. security commitments to . Bipartisan lawmakers, prioritizing U.S. strategic interests in maintaining regional stability and 's de facto autonomy amid threats from , introduced bills in both chambers within weeks, culminating in the passing H.R. 2479 on March 13, 1979, by a vote of 345-55, and the approving a companion measure on March 14 by 90-6. These lopsided margins underscored widespread congressional skepticism toward Carter's unilateral shift, which lacked adequate consultation and risked emboldening PRC aggression without reciprocal security assurances. Key architects, including Senator (R-NY), emphasized restoring congressional prerogatives in foreign policy and upholding principles of democratic for Taiwan's population, framing the act as a pragmatic safeguard for U.S. interests rather than ideological deference to Beijing's one-China claims. Javits, alongside Foreign Relations Committee members like Senator (R-MD), navigated amendments to ensure the legislation provided a framework for continued substantive ties without formal , reflecting empirical assessments of 's role as a bulwark against communist expansion in the Western Pacific. This rapid, cross-aisle effort—spanning just over three months from introduction to enactment—demonstrated Congress's intent to embed U.S. policy toward Taiwan in , insulating it from future executive whims. Carter signed the into on April 10, 1979, despite reservations, viewing it as constraining presidential flexibility in normalizing relations with the PRC. The act mandated the creation of the (AIT), a nonprofit incorporated under District of Columbia to serve as a , handling commercial, cultural, and quasi-official functions previously managed by the U.S. embassy in . By establishing AIT, ensured continuity of U.S. engagement with Taiwan's authorities and populace, prioritizing verifiable security imperatives over concessions to Beijing's demands for isolation.

Legislative Provisions

Defining Taiwan's Status

The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), enacted as Public Law 96-8 on April 10, 1979, delineates Taiwan's status through its policy declarations in Section 2(b), which affirm the island's distinct governance and security needs separate from the People's Republic of China (PRC). Specifically, subsection 2(b)(4) declares that any effort to determine Taiwan's future by non-peaceful means, including coercion, constitutes a threat to Western Pacific security and grave concern to the United States, implicitly rejecting PRC assertions of sovereign control or unilateral reunification. Subsection 2(b)(6) mandates maintaining U.S. capacity to resist force or coercion endangering Taiwan's security or socioeconomic system, while 2(b)(7) identifies PRC attempts to impose a political settlement as a comparable threat, thereby recognizing the de facto independence of Taiwan's political order from Beijing's authority. These provisions treat the authorities on Taiwan as legitimate representatives of its populace, entitled to self-determination via peaceful processes rather than subordination to the PRC. Section 3(a) further operationalizes this status by committing the to furnish Taiwan with defensive arms and services sufficient for maintaining capabilities against potential aggression, positioning Taiwan equivalently to a sovereign requiring such support for its survival. Section 4 reinforces legal distinctiveness by ensuring uninterrupted application of U.S. laws to as a foreign , mirroring pre-1979 treatment and preserving its capacity to engage in international , litigation, and agreements independently of PRC . This framework counters the PRC's "" narrative by establishing Taiwan's non-subordinate reality in U.S. policy, without endorsing Beijing's territorial claims or forced integration. Empirically, Taiwan's post-TRA trajectory under the Republic of China (ROC) government validates this status: from 1979 to 1997, real GDP grew at an average annual rate of 7.5%, transforming it into a high-tech powerhouse with rising from approximately $1,700 to over $12,000 by 1995, driven by private enterprise and rule-of-law reforms. advanced concurrently, culminating in martial law's end in 1987 and the ROC's first direct in 1996, yielding a with robust that diverged sharply from PRC and affirmed the legitimacy of Taiwan's self-governing institutions. These developments, sustained without PRC administration, underscore the TRA's causal role in enabling Taiwan's autonomous resilience against unification pressures.

Framework for Unofficial Relations

The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), enacted on April 10, 1979, mandates the maintenance of unofficial relations between the and through non-governmental instrumentalities to sustain commercial, cultural, and other substantive ties absent formal . Section 2(b) explicitly declares it the policy of the "to preserve and promote extensive, close, and friendly commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the and the people on ," while also seeking "to promote the development of close economic and cultural ties between and the ." This framework enables de facto engagement in areas such as trade facilitation, investment promotion, and people-to-people exchanges, treating as a distinct entity for applicable U.S. laws without altering the one-China policy. Central to this structure is the authorization under Section 6(a) for the establishment of the (AIT) as a to carry out functions previously handled by U.S. diplomatic missions, including the issuance of visas, protection of U.S. citizens in , and management of commercial and cultural programs. AIT operates as the primary channel for these unofficial interactions, entering into agreements with Taiwan's counterpart entity, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO), which performs analogous roles in the United States, such as consular services and trade representation. These arrangements, governed by Section 12 of the TRA, ensure continuity in practical dealings like visa processing and bilateral agreements on shipping, , and postal services, while requiring congressional notification for any such instruments. Section 3(b) preserves the applicability of pre-1979 U.S. laws, executive agreements, and treaties to unless explicitly terminated or inconsistent with the TRA, thereby supporting ongoing economic relations such as agreements and protections. For , Section 4(b) directs that be regarded as a foreign country distinct from the for purposes of U.S. statutes on patents, trademarks, copyrights, and related protections, allowing to participate in international conventions and benefit from reciprocal treatment. This separation facilitates 's independent engagement in global economic frameworks, including safeguards against unfair practices and promotion of bilateral flows, without implying sovereign recognition. The TRA's provisions under Section 4(a) further encourage U.S. support for Taiwan's "effective participation" in international organizations where statehood is not required, extending to economic and cultural forums that bolster non-military exchanges. Through and TECRO, this has enabled mechanisms like the U.S.- Trade and Framework Agreement (TIFA), initiated in 1994, to address barriers to , resolve disputes, and expand , reflecting the Act's emphasis on fostering resilient .

Defense and Arms Support Mandates

The (TRA) mandates defensive arms sales to Taiwan and requires the to maintain the capacity to resist any resort to force or that would jeopardize Taiwan's security or social and , but it does not create a legal obligation for the U.S. to defend Taiwan directly, as stipulated in Section 3(a), (c), and (d). This provision directs the President to preserve U.S. readiness to counter such threats, reflecting congressional intent to deter aggression through sustained defensive posture rather than explicit commitments. Section 3(a) further requires the President and to jointly determine appropriate responses to non-peaceful efforts affecting Taiwan's future, including boycotts or embargoes deemed of grave concern under Section 2(b)(4), emphasizing a shared responsibility for threat assessment without prescribing specific actions. Central to these mandates is the policy in Section 2(c)(5) to provide with arms of a defensive character, enabling it to maintain a sufficient capability against potential . This arms support is framed to promote Taiwan's ability to deter or independently, grounded in the recognition that U.S. provision of qualitative and quantitative military advantages enhances causal deterrence by raising the costs of aggression for adversaries. Section 3(b) obligates the President to promptly notify of any identified threats to Taiwan's security, facilitating coordinated evaluation of U.S. interests and responses. This framework prioritizes Taiwan's in defense, with U.S. support calibrated to defensive needs, as evidenced by ongoing evaluations of Taiwan's requirements under the Act's guidelines.

Executive Implementation and Reaffirmations

Initial Carter-Reagan Period

Following the enactment of the (TRA) on April 10, 1979, President directed the establishment of the (AIT) to serve as the de facto U.S. diplomatic presence on the island, handling functions such as visa issuance, commercial promotion, and cultural exchanges previously conducted through the U.S. embassy in . AIT was incorporated as a nonprofit entity in the District of Columbia on January 16, 1979, and commenced operations shortly after the TRA's passage to ensure continuity in unofficial relations despite the termination of formal diplomatic ties with the Republic of China on January 1, 1979. The Carter administration also began implementing the TRA's arms provisions by notifying of ongoing defensive transfers, including approvals for equipment to sustain Taiwan's capabilities, in line with the act's requirement to provide "defensive articles and services" necessary to resist armed attack or coercion. President Ronald Reagan, inaugurated in January 1981, intensified adherence to the TRA amid escalating pressure from the People's Republic of China (PRC) to limit U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, culminating in negotiations for the August 17, 1982, U.S.-PRC Joint Communiqué. In that communiqué, the U.S. pledged a gradual reduction in arms sales over time while linking such transfers to peaceful resolution of cross-Strait differences, but PRC demands risked undermining Taiwan's security assurances under the TRA. To address Taiwanese and congressional apprehensions over potential concessions—without altering the TRA's core framework—Reagan approved the "Six Assurances," privately conveyed to Taiwan's leadership by U.S. representative James Lilley on July 14, 1982. These assurances explicitly rejected setting a termination date for arms sales, altering the TRA, mediating between Taiwan and the PRC, exerting pressure on Taiwan to negotiate with Beijing, revising the U.S. position on Taiwan's sovereignty, or formally accepting PRC unification claims. The reinforced the TRA's anti-coercion mandate during initial Reagan-era arms transactions, such as the January 1982 notification to approving continued sales of Northrop F-5E fighter aircraft to , valued at supporting ongoing and upgrades for air defense. These transfers, numbering in the dozens of aircraft deliveries through the early , tested the TRA's provisions against PRC diplomatic objections but affirmed U.S. commitment to Taiwan's capacity to deter aggression without reliance on formal alliance structures.

Cold War End and 1990s Developments

Following the in 1991, the under President maintained its commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) amid shifting regional dynamics, emphasizing deterrence against coercion while pursuing engagement with the (PRC). The TRA's provisions for defensive arms provision and resistance to armed threats remained central to U.S. strategy, as evidenced by responses to escalating cross-Strait tensions in the mid-1990s. The 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis exemplified the TRA's operational role in crisis management. Triggered by PRC missile tests near in July and August 1995—conducted in response to Taiwan President Lee Teng-hui's June 1995 visit to —the PRC fired over 40 missiles into zones off 's ports, aiming to intimidate ahead of 's March 1996 presidential election. In March 1996, as PRC live-fire exercises intensified, the U.S. deployed the aircraft carriers and , along with accompanying battle groups, to waters near , marking the largest U.S. naval deployment to the region since the . This action upheld TRA Section 3(b), which requires the U.S. to maintain the capacity to resist any resort to force or coercion altering 's security, effectively deterring further PRC escalation without direct confrontation. Under Lee Teng-hui's leadership from 1988 to 2000, Taiwan advanced democratization, lifting in 1987, legalizing opposition parties, and holding its first direct in 1996, which Lee won with 54% of the vote. These reforms solidified Taiwan's and democratic institutions, aligning with TRA's recognition of Taiwan's government as the entity representing its people and reinforcing U.S. support for its security amid PRC claims of sovereignty. Lee's assertive , including the Cornell visit, prompted PRC backlash but underscored Taiwan's distinct political trajectory, prompting U.S. reaffirmations of TRA obligations to counterbalance . In June 1998, during a state visit to , President articulated the "" policy: the U.S. does not support Taiwan independence, or one China-one Taiwan, and Taiwan's membership in organizations requiring sovereign statehood. This statement aimed to reassure amid normalization efforts but did not alter TRA mandates, as evidenced by continued arms sales notifications, including $1.5 billion in deals approved in the late for submarines, Knox-class frigates, and Kidd-class destroyers. Such transfers demonstrated a balance between diplomatic engagement and resolve, with the administration conducting arms talks in April 1999 to address Taiwan's defensive needs under TRA Section 3(a).

21st-Century Bipartisan Commitments

In the early 2000s, President authorized a significant arms package to valued at approximately $18 billion, including Kidd-class destroyers, diesel-electric submarines, and P-3C Orion anti-submarine aircraft, reinforcing the Taiwan Relations Act's mandate to provide defensive arms. The Obama administration continued this pattern with notifications of arms sales totaling over $13 billion across its tenure, including a $1.83 billion package in December 2015 comprising Perry-class frigates, missiles, and radar systems, despite periodic delays attributed to cross-strait sensitivities. These executive actions aligned with bipartisan congressional support, exemplified by H.Con.Res. 88 in , which reaffirmed the Taiwan Relations Act and the as foundational to U.S. policy toward . The Trump administration escalated commitments through high-value arms transfers, notably approving an $8 billion sale of 66 F-16V Block 70 fighter jets to in August 2019—the largest such package in decades—to bolster Taiwan's air superiority amid rising regional threats. This decision, notified to with strong bipartisan backing, addressed Taiwan's aging F-16 fleet and signaled continuity in fulfilling the Act's security provisions without deference to Beijing's objections. Under President Biden, affirmations intensified in response to China's gray-zone coercion, including frequent military incursions into 's air defense identification zone. The Taiwan Enhanced Resilience Act, enacted as part of the Fiscal Year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act in December 2022, authorized up to $10 billion in security assistance over five years for 's military modernization, training, and asymmetric capabilities to deter aggression. Bipartisan congressional resolutions further underscored this, such as S.Res. 633 in April 2024, which explicitly reaffirmed U.S. commitment to on the Taiwan Relations Act's 45th anniversary, highlighting its enduring role in maintaining stability. These measures, including ongoing arms notifications exceeding $18 billion since 2021, demonstrate sustained cross-party resolve to operationalize the Act's defensive framework against evolving threats. In 2025, U.S. officials employed private channels to directly message leaders of Taiwan's opposition parties, the Kuomintang (KMT) and Taiwan People's Party (TPP), urging them against obstructing defense budget increases and framing the matter as a survival issue transcending partisan politics.

Controversies and Criticisms

Chinese Communist Party Objections

The (CCP), through official channels such as the Foreign Ministry, has repeatedly characterized the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of 1979 as illegal, invalid, and a direct violation of China's , asserting that it elevates U.S. domestic over international agreements like the three joint communiqués. PRC spokespersons maintain that the TRA constitutes interference in internal affairs by sustaining unofficial U.S.-Taiwan ties and enabling actions that purportedly encourage Taiwan's separation from the mainland. These pronouncements, disseminated via state-affiliated outlets, frame the TRA as obsolete in the context of the one-China principle, which the CCP upholds as non-negotiable despite lacking historical governance over . A core element of CCP objections targets the TRA's provisions for defensive arms sales to , which PRC officials decry as provocations that arm "separatist forces" and heighten cross-strait tensions. In responses to specific notifications—such as those in for advanced weaponry— has lodged formal diplomatic protests, summoned U.S. envoys, and warned of countermeasures, portraying the transfers as escalatory moves that undermine regional stability. These criticisms often invoke the TRA's mandate for the U.S. to provide Taiwan with capabilities to maintain sufficient , which the CCP interprets as tacit endorsement of rather than mere deterrence. The CCP links its stance on the TRA to domestic legislation like the 2005 , enacted on March 14, which codifies the use of "non-peaceful means" if declares formal independence, possibilities of become imminent, or peaceful reunification efforts are exhausted. This law positions U.S. compliance with TRA obligations—particularly arms support—as obstacles to unification, justifying PRC military modernization and frequent drills simulating blockades or invasions around . Yet, such rhetoric contrasts with observable realities: the CCP has never administered , which has operated as a self-governing entity with distinct political institutions since , indicating that TRA objections primarily veil irredentist ambitions for absorption by or , unalleviated by the absence of U.S. intervention.

US Policy Debates on Ambiguity

The U.S. policy of strategic ambiguity toward , codified in the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of , commits to providing defensive arms while deliberately avoiding a pledge of direct military intervention in the event of a Chinese attack, fostering uncertainty to deter aggression from both sides of the . This approach has sparked domestic debates over its sustainability amid China's military modernization, with proponents viewing the TRA's vagueness as a deliberate feature that balances deterrence without escalating tensions. Supporters of maintaining argue it has prevented conflict for over four decades by imposing dual risks: faces the prospect of U.S. involvement without guaranteed provocation, while is restrained from unilateral moves that could invite . They contend that explicit clarity could embolden to accelerate coercive actions or force a premature U.S. commitment, potentially drawing America into unwanted escalation, as ambiguity allows flexible responses tailored to specific contingencies. Advocates for strategic clarity, however, assert that ambiguity's deterrent value has eroded given China's heightened aggression, including more than 1,700 People's Liberation Army aircraft incursions into Taiwan's air defense identification zone since September 2020 and repeated large-scale exercises simulating blockades and amphibious assaults as of 2025. They highlight Taiwan's pivotal role in global supply chains, where Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) produces over 90% of the world's most advanced semiconductors essential for U.S. military and economic superiority, arguing that an unambiguous defense pledge is required to credibly counter Beijing's calculus of low-risk reunification by force. Proposals to diminish U.S. support, such as forgoing intervention commitments, are critiqued for underestimating the Chinese Communist Party's doctrinal emphasis on resolving the Taiwan issue through military means if necessary, evidenced by Xi Jinping's directives for PLA readiness by 2027 and sustained gray-zone coercion. Despite these divisions, a bipartisan consensus persists in on upholding TRA-mandated arms sales, with notifications exceeding $21 billion in backlog as of June 2025 and legislative efforts like the reintroduced Taiwan Relations Reinforcement Act rejecting reductions in favor of enhanced transfers and joint production to bolster 's self-defense without altering core ambiguity. This support reflects shared recognition of 's strategic value in countering Chinese expansion, overriding isolationist voices amid ongoing deliveries of systems like HIMARS and F-16 upgrades.

Taiwan's Autonomy and Self-Defense Views

Taiwan's major political parties, the (DPP) and (KMT), share a commitment to leveraging the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) to bolster defenses against potential authoritarian unification efforts by the (PRC), viewing it as essential for preserving democratic autonomy despite differing long-term visions for cross-strait ties. The DPP emphasizes Taiwan's sovereignty and rejects PRC claims, while the KMT advocates for dialogue under the framework of the "" but aligns on the need for TRA-mandated U.S. support to deter coercion, as evidenced by bipartisan legislative pushes for enhanced defense budgets exceeding 2.5% of GDP since 2022. This consensus underscores the TRA's role in enabling Taiwan's posture, focusing on resilient, cost-effective systems rather than symmetric matching of PRC capabilities. Complementing U.S. arms sales under the TRA—which totaled over $19 billion in notifications from 2010 to 2024, including , radars, and —Taiwan has accelerated indigenous defense production to achieve greater . Key initiatives include the Indigenous Defense (IDS) program, initiated in 2016 with a NT$500 billion (approximately $16 billion) investment, aiming to commission eight diesel-electric submarines by the mid-2030s to counter PRC naval superiority in the . In September 2025, Taiwan showcased advancements in domestic and drone systems at its largest arms fair, signaling integration of local manufacturing with U.S. technology transfers to reduce vulnerabilities in supply chains. These efforts align with the TRA's provision for defensive arms, emphasizing "porcupine" strategies of mobile, survivable assets like sea mines and anti-ship to impose high costs on invaders. Public opinion in Taiwan strongly favors preserving the status quo enabled by TRA-supported self-defense, with polls consistently showing majority opposition to unification and preference for indefinite maintenance of de facto independence. A February 2024 survey indicated rising support for the status quo, with around 60% favoring its continuation indefinitely or with future flexibility, while rejecting PRC's "one country, two systems" model by over 80%. Similarly, National Chengchi University data from 2023-2024 revealed 87% adherence to status quo variants, attributing this stability to robust deterrence frameworks like the TRA amid escalating PRC military drills. This sentiment reflects a pragmatic reliance on self-defense investments to safeguard autonomy without provoking immediate conflict.

Long-Term Impacts

Strengthening US-Taiwan Ties

The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of 1979 has facilitated sustained economic engagement between the and through unofficial channels, leading to significant expansion. Following the TRA's enactment, U.S.-Taiwan more than doubled in the initial years, with commercial disputes resolved via discussions between the (AIT) and its Taiwanese counterpart. By 2024, Taiwan's exports to the had increased by 32.5% from 2023 levels, reflecting robust growth in goods and services totaling over $130 billion annually. The , established as the primary mechanism for U.S. representation in under the TRA, has expanded its facilities and programs to support these ties, including a new compound opened in 2018 that enhanced operational capacity for economic and cultural functions. In the 2020s, this framework underpinned the U.S.- Initiative on 21st-Century Trade, launched in 2022, which culminated in the first agreement signed on , 2023, and entering into force on December 10, 2024. This pact streamlines customs procedures, facilitates small and medium-sized enterprise cooperation, and reduces trade barriers without constituting a formal . Technological interdependence has deepened under the TRA's provisions for commercial relations, exemplified by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)'s investments in U.S. facilities to secure supply chains. TSMC announced plans in March 2025 to expand its U.S. investment to $165 billion, including three additional fabrication plants and advanced packaging sites in , aimed at producing cutting-edge chips critical to U.S. defense and . These developments mitigate vulnerabilities in global production while fostering mutual economic reliance. Cultural and educational exchanges have reinforced shared democratic values, contrasting with authoritarian models elsewhere, through TRA-enabled people-to-people programs. The U.S.-Taiwan Education Initiative, launched in December 2020 by and 's representative office with U.S. Department of Education involvement, promotes scholarships, educator exchanges, and joint research to build mutual understanding. Annual grants further support cultural programming that highlights common commitments to and .

Tensions in US-PRC Relations

The Taiwan Relations Act's mandate for the to provide Taiwan with defensive arms has repeatedly provoked diplomatic protests and from the (PRC), which characterizes such sales as violations of its claims over the island. In December 2024, following U.S. notifications of military assistance packages, imposed sanctions on seven companies involved in the transactions. Earlier, in January 2024, targeted five U.S. defense firms with similar measures in direct response to approved arms transfers, including missiles and systems. These actions reflect a pattern dating back decades, as seen in 's 2015 condemnation of a $1.83 billion U.S. sale of and missiles, which prompted the summoning of U.S. diplomats and vows of countermeasures. Despite this persistent ire, the absence of a PRC invasion of Taiwan amid recurrent arms notifications and escalating cross-strait military drills points to the deterrent value of U.S. commitments under the TRA, which elevate the prospective costs and risks of aggression for Beijing. Strategic assessments emphasize that sustained arms provision enhances Taiwan's capacity for prolonged resistance, complicating any amphibious assault and signaling U.S. resolve without formal alliance obligations. This empirical restraint challenges PRC and sympathetic narratives framing U.S. sales as the primary provocation, as Beijing's unification threats and force modernization predated intensified post-2016 transfers and align more causally with its internal political imperatives than reactive U.S. policy. In the wider U.S.-PRC rivalry, TRA-enabled arms sales serve as a bulwark against Beijing's multifaceted coercion, including economic leverage via the to isolate diplomatically and foster dependencies that undermine its . U.S. approvals totaling $16.7 billion since have been positioned as complementary to efforts countering BRI's debt-trap dynamics and gray-zone pressures, preserving 's strategic amid PRC attempts to erode it through trade restrictions and dominance in the . This approach prioritizes credible defense postures and navigational freedoms over concessions that might embolden further encroachments, reflecting a realist assessment that accommodation incentivizes rather than appeases expansionist aims.

Role in Indo-Pacific Strategic Balance

The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of 1979 has served as a foundational element in maintaining the strategic balance of the by bolstering deterrence against potential (CCP) toward , which occupies a linchpin position in the —a arc of territories from through to the that constrains People's Republic of China (PRC) naval expansion into the broader Pacific. 's geographic centrality enables control over vital sea lanes of communication, through which approximately half of global container shipping passes, including routes connecting the to the and beyond, making its security indispensable for preserving open maritime access against PRC dominance. This positioning aligns the TRA with broader U.S.-led frameworks like the (Quad)—comprising the , , India, and Australia—and the AUKUS pact (, United Kingdom, Australia), which enhance collective capabilities to uphold a free and open amid PRC militarization. The TRA's mandate for defensive arms provision to reinforces these alliances by ensuring functions as an unbroken forward defensive line, complicating PRC power projection and supporting allied basing and surveillance operations. Empirically, the TRA has correlated with sustained cross-strait peace since its enactment, as no PRC or large-scale amphibious assault has occurred despite repeated threats, including tests and exercises simulating blockades—a stability attributable in analyses to the credible U.S. commitments embedded in the Act, which deter escalation by raising the costs of . This deterrence has preserved regional equilibrium without direct U.S.-PRC conflict, allowing to persist alongside readiness, though PRC gray-zone tactics—such as frequent air and naval incursions into Taiwan's —test the framework's resilience. U.S. Department of Defense assessments highlight that these sub-threshold actions aim to normalize PRC presence and erode Taiwanese resolve, underscoring the TRA's role in enabling responses like joint exercises and intelligence sharing that maintain equilibrium. Looking forward, evolving PRC capabilities, including deployment of hypersonic missiles capable of striking Taiwan and U.S. assets within minutes, necessitate enhancements to TRA-guided deterrence to counter anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) strategies and hybrid threats. Think tank evaluations, drawing on unclassified , argue for integrated approaches—such as advanced missile defenses and allied interoperability under Quad/AUKUS pillars—to future-proof the balance, as outdated ambiguity risks emboldening CCP calculations amid gray-zone coercion that avoids overt war thresholds. Failure to adapt could cede initiative in the , but sustained TRA implementation, paired with asymmetric Taiwanese defenses, continues to anchor a realist equilibrium prioritizing empirical over aspirational .

References

  1. https://www.congress.gov/96/statute/STATUTE-93/STATUTE-93-Pg14.pdf
  2. https://www.congress.gov/bill/96th-congress/house-bill/2479
  3. https://www.ait.org.tw/policy-history/taiwan-relations-act/
  4. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/3301
  5. https://www.ait.org.tw/policy-history/u-s-taiwan-relations/
  6. https://www.heritage.org/asia/report/the-taiwan-relations-act-after-20-years-keys-past-and-future-success
  7. https://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1950_us_china.htm
  8. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/chin001.asp
  9. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/special-message-the-senate-transmitting-mutual-defense-treaty-between-the-united-states
  10. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v14p1/d423
  11. https://www.cfr.org/article/us-military-support-taiwan-five-charts
  12. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/taiwan.htm
  13. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4732&context=doctoral
  14. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/taiwan-strait-crises
  15. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/diplomatic-relations-between-the-united-states-and-the-peoples-republic-china-united
  16. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1977-1980/china-policy
  17. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/rapprochement-china
  18. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vjtl/vol12/iss1/5/
  19. https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/04/29/2003560997
  20. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-taiwan-relations-act/
  21. https://www.nytimes.com/1979/03/14/archives/unofficial-us-links-to-taiwan-approved-by-house-and-senate-congress.html
  22. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/congress-and-foreign-relations-taiwan-relations-act
  23. https://globaltaiwan.org/2019/08/assessing-the-congressional-intent-of-the-taiwan-relations-act/
  24. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/publication/TRAPolicyBrief.Hickey.pdf
  25. https://www.ait.org.tw/taiwan-relations-act-public-law-96-8-22-u-s-c-3301-et-seq/
  26. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10275
  27. https://www.ait.org.tw/ait-tecro-agreements/
  28. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/04/21/2014-08984/selected-agreements-and-other-instruments-as-of-december-31-2013-between-the-american-institute-in
  29. https://2009-2017.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2014/03/223461.htm
  30. https://adst.org/2015/11/officially-unofficial-the-opening-of-the-american-institute-in-taiwan-ait/
  31. https://globaltaiwan.org/2024/04/a-personal-retrospective-on-the-taiwan-relations-act-at-45-how-the-tra-provided-the-base-for-us-taiwan-relations/
  32. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1977-80v13/d285
  33. https://www.ait.org.tw/u-s-prc-joint-communique-1982/
  34. https://www.heritage.org/asia/report/president-reagans-six-assurances-taiwan-and-their-meaning-today
  35. https://news.usni.org/2023/06/15/overview-of-reagans-6-assurances-to-taiwan
  36. https://taiwantoday.tw/Politics/Taiwan-Review/4885/index
  37. https://www.taiwanairpower.org/af/f5.html
  38. https://www.csis.org/analysis/taiwan-relations-act-forty-and-us-taiwan-relations
  39. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/3253814/averting-escalation-and-avoiding-war-lessons-from-the-19951996-taiwan-strait-cr/
  40. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D5-PURL-gpo193511/pdf/GOVPUB-D5-PURL-gpo193511.pdf
  41. https://www.comw.org/cmp/fulltext/00chang.pdf
  42. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/98-837.html
  43. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RS20365.html
  44. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001-05/press-releases/bush-approves-major-arms-deal-taiwan-defers-aegis-sale
  45. https://www.us-taiwan.org/resources/ustbc-president-follow-up-comments-examining-data-on-taiwan-arms-sales/
  46. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/obama-administration-authorizes-183-bln-arms-sale-to-taiwan-idUSKBN0U00DO/
  47. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/88/text/ih
  48. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/16/world/asia/taiwan-f16.html
  49. https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/20/politics/taiwan-fighter-jet-sales
  50. https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/dem/release/chairman-menendez-announces-historic-inclusion-of-taiwan-legislation-in-annual-defense-bill
  51. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-military-bill-features-up-10-billion-boost-taiwan-2022-12-07/
  52. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-resolution/633
  53. https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2025/05/31/2003837800
  54. https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/news/6123472
  55. https://us.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/zmgxss/202111/t20211117_10449571.htm
  56. https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-11-17/China-slams-U-S-s-Taiwan-Relations-Act-and-Six-Assurances--15gsiHK3z2g/index.html
  57. https://www.newsweek.com/china-rejects-historic-us-law-protecting-taiwan-illegal-invalid-1647908
  58. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202412/1325551.shtml
  59. https://www.newsweek.com/china-hits-out-us-arms-sale-taiwan-military-1956746
  60. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/world/asia/taiwan-arms-sales-us-china.html
  61. https://www.csis.org/analysis/employing-non-peaceful-means-against-taiwan
  62. https://usali.org/publications/talking-points-what-does-prc-law-say-about-taiwan
  63. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-taiwan-relations-tension-us-policy-trump
  64. https://globalasia.org/v17no3/cover/what-the-taiwan-relations-act-really-means-for-us-policy_james-lee
  65. https://www.heritage.org/china/commentary/should-the-usa-maintain-its-policy-strategic-ambiguity-towards-taiwan
  66. https://warontherocks.com/2021/06/the-ambiguity-of-strategic-clarity/
  67. https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/defense/chinese-military-activity-near-taiwan
  68. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/19/taiwan-semiconductor-industry-booming
  69. https://www.cfr.org/article/onshoring-semiconductor-production-national-security-versus-economic-efficiency
  70. https://www.nbr.org/publication/strategic-clarity-and-the-future-of-u-s-taiwan-foreign-relations/
  71. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Wild-Blue-Yonder/Article-Display/Article/3892540/strategic-ambiguity-and-patience-a-holistic-strategy-to-sustain-peace-across-th/
  72. https://tsm.schar.gmu.edu/taiwan-arms-sale-backlog-june-2025-update-new-mnd-document-sheds-light-on-arms-sale-status/
  73. https://youngkim.house.gov/2025/05/09/us-senators-reintroduce-bill-to-support-taiwan/
  74. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12481
  75. https://thediplomat.com/2025/09/in-an-america-first-era-taiwan-gains-ground-in-congress/
  76. https://globaltaiwan.org/2020/10/are-dpp-and-kmt-views-of-china-converging/
  77. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF10275/IF10275.84.pdf
  78. https://eastasiaforum.org/2025/10/08/taiwan-needs-bipartisan-defence-consensus/
  79. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL30957.html
  80. https://www.naval-technology.com/news/taiwans-submarine-programme-is-a-vital-deterrence-against-china/
  81. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3326197/taiwan-flexes-defence-self-reliance-us-missile-and-drone-partnerships-arms-fair
  82. https://tnsr.org/2021/12/a-large-number-of-small-things-a-porcupine-strategy-for-taiwan/
  83. https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/news/5101212
  84. https://globaltaiwan.org/2021/07/taiwanese-preference-for-status-quo-remains-constant-even-as-views-harden/
  85. https://focustaiwan.tw/cross-strait/202504250008
  86. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10256
  87. https://globaltaiwan.org/2018/06/reflections-on-the-opening-of-aits-new-building/
  88. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2024/december/ustr-announces-entry-force-first-agreement-under-us-taiwan-initiative-21st-century-trade
  89. https://www.reuters.com/world/first-agreement-under-taiwan-us-trade-initiative-come-into-force-2024-12-10/
  90. https://pr.tsmc.com/english/news/3210
  91. https://www.cfr.org/blog/unpacking-tsmcs-100-billion-investment-united-states
  92. https://www.ait.org.tw/education-exchanges/ait-aps/
  93. https://apnews.com/article/china-sanctions-us-military-sales-taiwan-33e27d5389740e4a1f6c2f1ff7381931
  94. https://apnews.com/article/china-us-taiwan-sanctions-arms-sales-a2cc4dd00ad8982aa1c67594e1a1c19c
  95. https://globaltaiwan.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/GTB-PDF-5.24.pdf
  96. https://2021-2025.state.gov/assessing-u-s-efforts-to-counter-chinas-coercive-belt-and-road-diplomacy/
  97. https://www.stimson.org/2025/economic-coercion-from-the-peoples-republic-of-china/
  98. https://www.spf.org/spf-china-observer/en/document-detail045.html
  99. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/geostrategic-competition-and-overseas-basing-in-east-asia-and-the-first-island-chain/
  100. https://publications.armywarcollege.edu/News/Display/Article/3706524/us-taiwan-relations-and-the-future-of-the-liberal-order/
  101. https://pacforum.org/publications/pacnet-16-taiwans-true-regional-and-existential-importance-outside-of-semiconductors/
  102. https://globaltaiwan.org/2024/04/the-taiwan-relations-act-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-tool-for-maintaining-cross-strait-stability/
  103. https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/resisting-chinas-gray-zone-military-pressure-on-taiwan
  104. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA2900/RRA2954-1/RAND_RRA2954-1.pdf
  105. https://defendingtaiwan.com/conventional-deterrence-and-taiwans-independence-necessary-investments/
  106. https://globaltaiwan.org/2021/11/assessing-the-concept-of-integrated-deterrence-for-taiwan/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.