In the late 1990s, the U.S. Congress passed a non-binding resolution stipulating that Taiwan-U.S. relations would first be honored through the TRA. This resolution, which gives more weight to the value of the TRA than to that of the three communiqués, was also signed by President Bill Clinton. [7] [8] Both houses of Congress have repeatedly reaffirmed the importance of the Taiwan Relations Act. [9] A July 2007 report by the Congressional Research Service confirmed that US policy has not recognized the PRC`s sovereignty over Taiwan. [10] The PRC continues to view the Taiwan Relations Law as “unwarranted interference by the United States in China`s internal affairs.” [11] The US continued to supply arms to Taiwan and China continued to protest. [12] At first glance, the TRA appears to need only the United States. Sell defense equipment so that Taiwan can maintain self-defense and the president informs Congress of any threat to Taiwan`s security. When China launches a military attack, the president is only required by law to “determine appropriate measures in accordance with constitutional processes.” This requirement applies to executive-legislative consultations and appears to be little of an obligation, as Bernstein claims, to “intervene when China launches an armed attack on Taiwan.” Ultimately, the core of any security guarantee is not legal obligation, but political will. Legally, Taiwan has no iron U.S. security guarantee against a Chinese attack, but the same goes for almost everyone – including NATO.
Whether the United States defends Taiwan or any other country depends largely on issues of diplomacy, military facts, and political will. I hope the new President of Taiwan understands this. In addition, Biden mentioned that his conversation with Xi took place last month, but Taiwanese have all witnessed the sharp increase in attacks this week. So it seems that the conversation has no impact, if not negative, on the stability of the Taiwan Strait. Once a backward of Imperial China, Taiwan was colonized by the Japanese during the World Wars. In 1949, Chinese nationalists fled there after losing a bloody civil war against the Communists, who founded the People`s Republic of China (PRC) with their government in Beijing. However, the law, which was passed after Washington withdrew its diplomatic recognition of the Republic of China in favor of the PRC, commits the United States to “preserve and promote extensive, close and friendly trade, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people of Taiwan.” The Wall Street Journal reports that about two dozen members of the U.S. military have worked with the Taiwanese armed forces. Senator Barry Goldwater and other members of the U.S. Congress challenged President Jimmy Carter`s right to unilaterally cancel the Sino-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty, which the U.S.
had signed with the Republic of China in December 1954 and ratified by the U.S. Senate in February 1955. Goldwater and its co-filings in Goldwater v. Carter argued that the president needed Senate approval to take such a termination under Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution, and that President Carter had not acted beyond the authority of his office by failing to do so. [3] But as tensions with China have risen in recent years, former President Donald Trump`s administration has stepped up its support for Taiwan, approving about $5.1 billion in arms sales in 2020 alone and approving high-level official visits to Taipei. Biden made the remark at the White House in response to a reporter`s question about rising tensions in the Taiwan Strait, with Beijing sending more than 149 military aircraft to Taiwan for four consecutive days while celebrating celebrations marking the founding of the People`s Republic of China. The law de facto authorizes diplomatic relations with government agencies by giving the AIT special powers to the extent that it is the de facto embassy, and stipulates that all international agreements concluded between the Republic of China and the United States before 1979 will continue to be valid, unless otherwise terminated. An agreement unilaterally terminated by President Jimmy Carter after establishing relations with the PRC was the Sino-AMERICAN Mutual Defense Treaty. Here is the relevant legal document of the Taiwan Relations Law (TRA).
The law was passed by Congress in 1979 after the United States decided to sever relations with Taiwan, abrogate the Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the Republic of China (Taiwan), and establish relations with China. TRA is often cited by US politicians as the legal framework for Taiwanese policies. While tra has practical significance for civil and trade relations with Taiwan, it does not severely bind U.S. policymakers when it comes to U.S.-China-Taiwan relations. The Taiwan Relations Act does not guarantee that the United States will intervene militarily if the PRC attacks or invades Taiwan, nor does it abandon it, as its primary purpose is to ensure that U.S. policy on Taiwan is not unilaterally altered by the president, and to ensure that any decision to defend Taiwan is made with congressional approval. The law states that “the United States shall provide Taiwan with such defense items and defense services in the quantity necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain sufficient self-defense capabilities.” However, the decision on the type and amount of defense services America will provide to Taiwan will be made by the president and Congress. The US policy has been called “strategic ambiguity” and is aimed at deterring Taiwan from a unilateral declaration of independence and preventing the PRC from unilaterally uniting Taiwan with the PRC.
The Parties undertake to strengthen their free institutions and to cooperate in the development of economic progress and social well-being, and to promote their individual and collective efforts to achieve these objectives. The US president appeared to be referring to a 90-minute conversation he had with Xi on September 9. And while his remark was meant to allay fears, it only caused confusion. The law was passed by both houses of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1979 after the U.S.-Republic of China severed relations over Taiwan. Congress rejected the State Department`s proposed bill and replaced it with language that has remained in effect since 1979. The Carter administration signed the Taiwan Relations Act to cultivate commercial, cultural, and other relations through unofficial relations in the form of a non-profit corporation established under the laws of the District of Columbia – the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) – without official government representation and formal diplomatic relations. [4] The Act came into force retroactively with effect from January 1, 1979. “I spoke to Xi about Taiwan,” Biden told reporters when asked about China`s provocative actions. “We agree – we will abide by the Taiwan agreement. There you go.
And we`ve made it clear that I don`t think he should do anything other than stick to the deal. From the perspective of the U.S. Senate, a February report was released as part of the ratification of the MDT. 8, 1955, clarified by the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations: “The Committee is of the opinion that the coming into force of this Treaty will not change or affect the existing legal status of Formosa and the Pescadores.” Section 3 implements this policy by requiring the United States Government to “provide Taiwan with such defense items and defense services in the quantity necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain sufficient self-defense capability.” It further required the president to “immediately inform Congress of any threat to the security or social or economic system of the Taiwanese people and any resulting threat to the interests of the United States.” Finally, the TRA requires that “the President and Congress, in accordance with constitutional processes, determine the appropriate measures taken by the United States in response to such a threat.” White House officials then had to clarify that the United States does not have a formal defense treaty with Taiwan, even though it does so with South Korea and Japan. Therefore, Taiwan would be wise not to feel too comfortable with its US security guarantee. Legally, this is not a guarantee at all. However, the TRA should also not be dismissed as legally irrelevant with respect to the United States. Obligations. After all, other U.S. defense guarantees in the region are not much more robust than the TRA. For example, Article V of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty simply states that “each party recognizes that an armed attack on any of the parties” in the territories administered by Japan “would be dangerous to its own peace and security.” The United States and Japan agree that each country would “act to counter the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes.” The same language can be found in similar provisions of defense treaties between Korea, the Philippines and Australia and New Zealand.
.