ABSTRACT
The story of U.S. policy towards Taiwan is one of evolution, marked by shifting alliances, strategic ambiguity, and changing global dynamics. From Richard Nixon’s groundbreaking rapprochement with China to the bold moves made during Donald Trump’s presidency, this tale is filled with pivotal moments that have shaped the delicate balance in the Taiwan Strait. Over time, the United States has tried to maintain a “status quo,” a careful balance where neither Beijing nor Taipei would make drastic moves, allowing peace to prevail. However, as China has grown more powerful and Taiwan has become an increasingly vibrant democracy, this balance has come under strain.
The Trump era was a turning point. Unlike previous administrations that preferred to keep a low profile when it came to Taiwan, Trump made bold, public gestures that signaled strong support for the island. He took actions like approving high-level diplomatic engagements with Taiwanese leaders, selling advanced weapons, and pulling Taiwan closer into the broader U.S. strategy for the Indo-Pacific region. These moves sent a clear message to both Taiwan and China—the United States was committed to supporting Taiwan’s security. But they also provoked Beijing, leading to stronger military responses and increased tension in the region.
China, under the watchful eye of the world, responded with forceful tactics. Military exercises near Taiwan became more frequent, and Beijing’s rhetoric grew harsher. The increased visibility of the U.S.-Taiwan relationship put pressure on the longstanding “status quo.” It was no longer just about maintaining peace but about navigating an increasingly complex relationship where missteps could lead to conflict. Taiwan, meanwhile, found itself caught between asserting its democratic identity and avoiding actions that could provoke a full-scale confrontation.
The legacy of these years leaves the United States at a crossroads. The old strategy of ambiguity, where no one quite knew what the U.S. would do in case of a crisis, seems less effective now. China’s rise as a formidable power and Taiwan’s determination to solidify its democratic identity mean that the traditional playbook needs revisiting. The challenge now is finding a new path—one that supports Taiwan without pushing China into aggressive actions, and one that maintains stability in a region that is crucial to global security.
The story of U.S., China, and Taiwan is far from over. As the dynamics continue to shift, the need for a recalibrated approach grows ever more pressing. It is a tale of power, diplomacy, and the struggle to maintain peace in the face of changing realities. The United States must find a balanced strategy that acknowledges these shifts and ensures that Taiwan can thrive as a democratic society without escalating the risk of military confrontation. The stakes are high, and the world is watching as this story unfolds.
The United States has long maintained a delicate balancing act regarding Taiwan, one shaped by historical imperatives, Cold War strategies, and contemporary power dynamics. The policy, often summarized as the intention to uphold the “status quo,” has undergone subtle but significant shifts since the early days of U.S.-China engagement. This analysis explores how U.S. policy towards Taiwan evolved from the era of Richard Nixon through today, examining the geostrategic, political, and ideological factors that influence Washington’s approach.
The origins of the United States’ stance on Taiwan can be traced back to critical moments in mid-20th-century history, beginning with President Richard Nixon’s groundbreaking Foreign Affairs article in 1967, “Asia After Vietnam.” This article set the stage for Nixon’s later pivot to China and underscored his recognition of the need to recalibrate U.S. engagement in Asia. Following decades of intense military involvement across the region—from Korea to Vietnam—the U.S. sought an alternative to unending conflict. Nixon’s vision was to find a way for the United States to remain a formidable force in Asia while avoiding direct, prolonged military engagements.
This strategy came into sharper focus as Nixon sought rapprochement with China to counterbalance Soviet influence. His acknowledgment of China as both an adversary and a potential ally against the Soviet Union underscored a nuanced understanding of the geopolitical landscape of the era. Nixon’s early writings recognized China’s nuclear capabilities and revisionist ambitions, viewing the country as a “present and potential danger.” However, unlike the immediate threat posed by the Soviet Union, Nixon perceived China’s role in the international order as more malleable—something that could be shaped by deft diplomacy.
Upon becoming President, Nixon embarked on a bold diplomatic initiative, enlisting Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai as partners in this realignment. The dialogue culminated in the historical visit to Beijing in 1972, marking the beginning of a new chapter in Sino-American relations. While a formal resolution on Taiwan was not achieved, both sides agreed to manage their differences, effectively sidelining the issue to pave the way for broader cooperation. This nuanced approach was critical to ensuring that both the U.S. and China could collaborate on common interests—namely, managing Soviet influence—without being derailed by the contentious status of Taiwan.
Rapprochement and the Ambiguities of Taiwan Policy
The rapprochement between the United States and China that Nixon initiated culminated under President Jimmy Carter in 1979, when Washington officially recognized the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the legitimate government of China. This shift necessitated the formal downgrading of U.S. relations with Taiwan, previously recognized as the Republic of China (ROC). Yet, the United States was careful not to abandon Taiwan entirely, acknowledging Beijing’s claim over Taiwan while simultaneously passing the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) in 1979, which guaranteed the continued provision of arms for Taiwan’s self-defense.
The TRA is a pivotal document that crystallized the U.S. approach to Taiwan, laying the foundation for what would become known as the “One China” policy—a policy that simultaneously acknowledges the People’s Republic of China’s claim over Taiwan without explicitly endorsing it. This dual ambiguity, enshrined in both diplomatic language and legislative action, allowed the U.S. to maintain unofficial relations with Taiwan while avoiding an outright confrontation with Beijing.
Another cornerstone of the U.S. approach emerged from the three U.S.–China Joint Communiqués (1972, 1979, and 1982), which collectively framed the nature of bilateral relations. Particularly significant was the 1982 communiqué, in which the United States declared its intention to gradually reduce arms sales to Taiwan, contingent on China’s peaceful intentions towards the island. This assurance was balanced by the “Six Assurances” provided to Taiwan, emphasizing that the U.S. would not set a specific end date for arms sales, would not mediate between Beijing and Taipei, and would not pressure Taiwan to negotiate with China.
The delicate balance established by these documents represented a strategic compromise, attempting to satisfy both China and Taiwan, while preserving U.S. interests in the broader Indo-Pacific region. This ambiguous posture was intended to deter unilateral actions by either Beijing or Taipei that could escalate tensions. However, the language of the U.S. policy, crafted in an era when China was still emerging from the throes of the Cultural Revolution and Taiwan was under martial law, reflected the assumptions and strategic realities of that time—a vastly different world from the one we see today.
Shifts in Geopolitical Dynamics: The Rise of China and Taiwan’s Transformation
Over the ensuing decades, the geopolitical landscape of Asia underwent dramatic changes, many of which would challenge the sustainability of the “status quo” as articulated in the 1970s and 1980s. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 fundamentally altered the global balance of power, eliminating the primary justification for the U.S.-China rapprochement. In the absence of a common Soviet adversary, the U.S. and China found themselves increasingly at odds, particularly as China began to rise economically and militarily.
China’s rapid economic growth, catalyzed by market reforms under Deng Xiaoping, transformed it into a global powerhouse. The “peaceful rise” narrative that China adopted in the 1990s was accompanied by a substantial increase in military capabilities, including significant investments in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and an expanding blue-water navy. The modernization of China’s military capabilities, combined with its assertive territorial claims in the South China Sea and East China Sea, began to shift the regional power dynamics, raising concerns in Washington and among its regional allies.
Simultaneously, Taiwan underwent a profound transformation. From the late 1980s onwards, Taiwan transitioned from an authoritarian regime under the Kuomintang (KMT) to a vibrant democracy. The lifting of martial law in 1987 marked the beginning of Taiwan’s democratization process, leading to the first direct presidential elections in 1996. Taiwan’s evolution into a democratic society fundamentally altered the way the international community, particularly the United States, viewed the island. No longer was Taiwan merely a geopolitical pawn in the U.S.-China rivalry; it had become a symbol of democratic values in contrast to the one-party rule of the PRC.
The democratization of Taiwan also had significant implications for cross-strait relations. As Taiwan’s political landscape diversified, so too did the range of perspectives on the island’s future. While the KMT traditionally advocated for eventual reunification with the mainland under favorable terms, the emergence of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) introduced a powerful pro-independence voice into Taiwanese politics. The rise of the DPP, which has often been skeptical of closer ties with Beijing, has led to heightened tensions across the Taiwan Strait, particularly during periods when the DPP has held the presidency.
The “Status Quo” Under Strain
As China’s power grew and Taiwan’s democracy matured, the concept of the “status quo” that had underpinned U.S. policy towards Taiwan began to fray. The “status quo,” as originally conceived, implied a balance of power in which neither Beijing nor Taipei would take unilateral actions to alter the situation in the Taiwan Strait. However, Beijing’s increasing use of gray zone tactics—actions that fall short of open conflict but are intended to intimidate and coerce—has fundamentally altered the dynamics of the cross-strait relationship.
These gray zone tactics include a range of activities, from diplomatic isolation campaigns aimed at reducing Taiwan’s international space to economic coercion and military pressure. Beijing’s efforts to peel away Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, combined with its use of economic leverage to dissuade countries and companies from engaging with Taiwan, have put immense pressure on Taipei. Militarily, the PLA has significantly increased its activities around Taiwan, including regular incursions into Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) and large-scale military exercises designed to demonstrate China’s capability to conduct a blockade or invasion.
The increasing frequency of these military maneuvers, exemplified by exercises such as “Joint Sword” in 2023, has brought into sharp relief the challenges inherent in maintaining the “status quo.” For Beijing, these actions are intended to signal its resolve to prevent any moves towards Taiwanese independence, while for Washington and Taipei, they represent a growing threat to regional stability. The ambiguity that once allowed the U.S. to navigate its relationships with both China and Taiwan is increasingly being tested by Beijing’s willingness to employ coercive measures that stop short of outright conflict but nonetheless change the strategic environment.
Taiwan, for its part, has responded by seeking to bolster its defenses and diversify its international partnerships. The administration of President Tsai Ing-wen, in particular, has emphasized the importance of strengthening ties with like-minded democracies, including the United States, Japan, and countries in Europe. Taiwan has also sought to reform its military, moving towards an asymmetric defense strategy designed to make any potential Chinese invasion as costly as possible. This shift in Taiwan’s defense posture reflects a recognition that the balance of power in the Taiwan Strait has shifted decisively in Beijing’s favor, necessitating a new approach to deterrence.
Washington’s Policy: Continuity and the Need for Recalibration
Despite the changing realities in the Taiwan Strait, U.S. policy has largely remained anchored in the language of maintaining the “status quo.” Successive administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have reiterated their commitment to the One China policy, the Taiwan Relations Act, and the Six Assurances. This continuity has provided a measure of stability in U.S.-China-Taiwan relations, reassuring allies and partners in the region that the U.S. is not seeking to provoke a conflict with China.
However, there is a growing recognition in Washington that the policy framework established in the late 20th century may no longer be sufficient to address the challenges posed by an increasingly assertive China. The Biden administration, like its predecessors, has sought to reassure both Beijing and Taipei that it remains committed to the “status quo.” Yet, the ambiguity that has long characterized U.S. policy—intended to deter both Beijing from using force and Taipei from declaring independence—has come under increasing strain as China’s capabilities and ambitions have expanded.
The United States has responded to Beijing’s actions with a combination of military signaling, diplomatic engagement, and economic measures. The increased frequency of U.S. naval transits through the Taiwan Strait, as well as joint exercises with allies such as Japan and Australia, are intended to signal Washington’s commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific. At the same time, high-level visits to Taiwan by U.S. officials, as well as efforts to deepen economic ties through initiatives like the U.S.-Taiwan Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA), reflect a growing recognition of Taiwan’s importance as a partner in the region.
Yet, these actions have also raised questions about the coherence and effectiveness of U.S. policy. While Washington continues to emphasize its commitment to the “status quo,” its actions—such as arms sales to Taiwan, military transits, and diplomatic engagements—are increasingly viewed by Beijing as provocative. The challenge for U.S. policymakers is to find a way to support Taiwan’s security and democratic development without crossing the red lines that could trigger a military response from China.
The Case for a Policy Review
Given the evolving dynamics in the Taiwan Strait and the broader Indo-Pacific region, there is a compelling case for a comprehensive review of U.S. policy towards Taiwan. Such a review would need to take into account the significant changes that have occurred since the policy framework was first established, including the rise of China as a peer competitor to the United States, the maturation of Taiwan’s democracy, and the increasing complexity of the regional security environment.
A policy review could provide an opportunity to clarify U.S. objectives in the Taiwan Strait and to develop a more proactive approach to deterring Chinese coercion. This does not necessarily mean abandoning the One China policy or the strategic ambiguity that has underpinned U.S. policy for decades. Instead, it could involve a recalibration of the ways in which the United States supports Taiwan—enhancing military cooperation, deepening economic ties, and working more closely with regional allies to present a united front against Chinese coercion.
Such a review could also help to address some of the ambiguities that have long characterized U.S. policy. For example, while the United States has consistently stated that it does not support Taiwanese independence, it has also emphasized that the future of Taiwan should be determined peacefully and in accordance with the wishes of the people of Taiwan. Clarifying how the United States would respond to various contingencies—such as a Chinese blockade, an invasion, or a declaration of independence by Taiwan—could help to deter miscalculations by either Beijing or Taipei.
Donald Trump and the Shifting U.S.-Taiwan Policy
The Trump administration marked a significant departure from the cautious, almost understated approach to Taiwan that had characterized previous U.S. administrations. Under President Donald Trump, the United States adopted a more overtly supportive stance toward Taiwan, reflecting the broader shift in Washington’s policy towards Beijing. Trump’s tenure represented an era of recalibration, where the competitive aspects of U.S.-China relations became increasingly pronounced, and Taiwan’s role as a partner in countering Beijing’s influence was more openly recognized.
Early in his administration, Trump signaled a willingness to challenge existing norms in U.S.-China relations. Even before taking office, Trump broke with diplomatic precedent by accepting a phone call from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen in December 2016. This direct communication between U.S. and Taiwanese leaders was the first of its kind since the U.S. formally shifted diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979. The call was a clear signal of Trump’s intent to re-evaluate the established protocols of U.S.-Taiwan-China relations and underscored his administration’s willingness to take a more confrontational stance toward China.
Trump’s approach to Taiwan was further reflected in the series of legislative and administrative actions taken during his presidency. The Taiwan Travel Act, signed into law in March 2018, encouraged high-level visits between U.S. and Taiwanese officials, effectively challenging Beijing’s long-standing objections to official exchanges between Washington and Taipei. This law was followed by the Taiwan Assurance Act of 2020, which reiterated U.S. support for Taiwan’s defense needs and emphasized the importance of regular arms sales to maintain Taiwan’s self-defense capabilities.
The Trump administration also oversaw a significant increase in arms sales to Taiwan, approving more than $18 billion worth of defense equipment during his four years in office. These sales included advanced weaponry such as F-16 fighter jets, anti-ship missiles, and sophisticated surveillance systems. The increased frequency and scale of these arms sales were intended to bolster Taiwan’s defense posture in the face of growing Chinese military pressure and to signal U.S. commitment to Taiwan’s security. By providing Taiwan with the tools necessary for an asymmetric defense strategy, the Trump administration aimed to enhance Taipei’s ability to deter a potential Chinese invasion or blockade.
Trump’s broader trade and economic policies also had indirect but significant implications for Taiwan. The U.S.-China trade war, which began in 2018, saw the imposition of tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese goods. This economic confrontation not only escalated tensions between Washington and Beijing but also created opportunities for Taiwan to strengthen its economic ties with the United States. As U.S. companies sought to diversify their supply chains away from China, Taiwan’s position as a leading technology and semiconductor producer became increasingly important. The Trump administration’s emphasis on reducing dependence on Chinese manufacturing aligned well with Taiwan’s strategic economic interests, particularly in the semiconductor industry, where Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) plays a crucial role.
The Trump administration’s actions towards Taiwan must also be understood within the context of its broader Indo-Pacific strategy. Announced in 2019, the Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) strategy emphasized the importance of working with allies and partners to counter China’s growing influence in the region. Taiwan was identified as a key partner in this strategy, and the administration took steps to include Taiwan in regional initiatives, despite Beijing’s objections. By framing Taiwan as a vital partner in the effort to maintain a free and open Indo-Pacific, the Trump administration sought to elevate Taiwan’s international profile and integrate it more closely into the U.S.-led regional security architecture.
However, Trump’s approach to Taiwan was not without risks. The more explicit support for Taiwan, coupled with the administration’s confrontational stance towards China, led to a marked deterioration in U.S.-China relations. Beijing viewed the increased U.S. engagement with Taiwan as a direct challenge to its sovereignty claims and responded with heightened military activity in the Taiwan Strait. The PLA significantly increased the number and scale of its military exercises near Taiwan, including frequent incursions into Taiwan’s ADIZ. These actions were intended to signal Beijing’s resolve and to deter both Washington and Taipei from taking steps that might be perceived as moves toward Taiwanese independence.
Implications for Future U.S. Policy
The legacy of the Trump administration’s Taiwan policy has had lasting implications for U.S. strategy in the region. By breaking with past norms and adopting a more openly supportive stance towards Taiwan, Trump effectively redefined the parameters of U.S. engagement with Taipei. This shift has made it more challenging for subsequent administrations to revert to a more cautious approach without appearing to concede to Chinese pressure. The Biden administration, while adopting a more measured tone, has largely continued many of the policies initiated under Trump, including regular arms sales, high-level engagements, and the inclusion of Taiwan in regional dialogues.
The increased U.S. support for Taiwan under Trump also prompted a reassessment of cross-strait dynamics by both Taipei and Beijing. For Taiwan, the explicit backing from Washington has provided a greater sense of security but has also necessitated careful navigation to avoid provoking Beijing unnecessarily. President Tsai’s administration has sought to balance the enhanced support from the United States with efforts to maintain stability in cross-strait relations, emphasizing the importance of dialogue and restraint while continuing to strengthen Taiwan’s defense capabilities.
For Beijing, the Trump era underscored the limitations of its previous strategy of using economic leverage to influence U.S. policy on Taiwan. The deterioration in U.S.-China relations during Trump’s presidency highlighted the need for Beijing to prepare for a more confrontational and unpredictable United States, leading to a more assertive military posture in the Taiwan Strait. The PLA’s increased capabilities and willingness to conduct large-scale exercises near Taiwan reflect a strategic shift aimed at deterring both Taiwanese moves toward independence and increased U.S. involvement.
Looking ahead, the legacy of Trump’s Taiwan policy poses both opportunities and challenges for U.S. policymakers. On one hand, the enhanced support for Taiwan has strengthened the island’s ability to resist coercion and has reinforced the U.S. commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific. On the other hand, the more explicit U.S. engagement with Taiwan has increased the risk of miscalculation and escalation, particularly as China continues to expand its military capabilities and assert its sovereignty claims.
A key challenge for future U.S. administrations will be to navigate the fine line between supporting Taiwan’s security and democratic development while avoiding actions that could trigger a military response from Beijing. This will require a nuanced approach that builds on the enhanced support provided under Trump while seeking to manage tensions through diplomacy and engagement. The importance of working closely with regional allies and partners, including Japan, Australia, and South Korea, will be critical in presenting a united front and deterring potential Chinese aggression.
In conclusion, the Trump administration’s approach to Taiwan represented a significant shift in U.S. policy, one that has had lasting implications for cross-strait relations and regional stability. By adopting a more overtly supportive stance towards Taiwan, Trump redefined the U.S.-Taiwan relationship and set the stage for a more competitive U.S.-China dynamic. The challenge for future U.S. policymakers will be to build on this legacy in a way that supports Taiwan’s security and autonomy while minimizing the risk of conflict in the Taiwan Strait.
