Failure to Communiqué

Strategic Vision vol. 8, no. 41 (April, 2019)

Arguments against US defence of Taiwan based on failure to understand reality

Robert McCoy

Robert McCoy is a retired US Air Force Korean linguist and analyst who was stationed in Asia for over 14 years.

President and Mrs. Nixon visit the Great Wall. Nixon signed the Shanghai Communiqué in 1972, in which the US acknowledged the one-China policy.

photo: Byron Schumaker

As China continues its aggression in the South China Sea and now threatens Taiwan with force, there is a debate in foreign policy circles over whether the United States should get involved in supporting Taiwan. The argument is over the wrong point, for America is already involved through continuing arms sales to Taipei and US President Donald Trump’s promoting contacts with and visits to Taiwan by administration officials. The real issue is how far ought Washington be willing to go in defending an ally under pressure. The answer is clear that defending Taiwan is in America’s national interest.

However, even as Americans question foreign meddling in its own politics, a US foreign policy guru no longer officially associated with the US government took it upon himself to write an open letter to a Taiwanese activist who advocates independence from China. Bookings senior fellow Richard Bush presumed to advise Kuo Pei-hung, chairman of pro-independence Formosa TV, to consider the potentially serious fallout from China should Taiwan accept any invitation to speak before the American Congress. Subsequently, another foreign policy authority, Joseph Bosco of the Institute for Taiwan-American Studies, countered with an op-ed that pointed out the flaws in Bush’s thinking. While Bosco’s piece does rebut Bush’s position, it could have gone further in explaining why it makes sense for Taipei to improve its already close ties with Washington.

Avoiding disagreement

Both the open letter and the op-ed piece referred to the Shanghai Communiqué issued jointly by China and the United States on 28 February, 1972. The only significant point of agreement in that communiqué was that both sides agreed that there was but one China and that Taiwan was part of that one China. While Beijing did claim that the People’s Republic of China was the only legitimate government of that one China, the United States did not take a position for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, non-aggression against other states, [and] noninterference in the internal affairs of other states.”

However, recent Chinese behavior shows indisputably that they are not adhering to that, as evidenced by anumber of incidents, including a) the ramming of a Japanese vessel in the East China Sea; b) the sinking of a Vietnamese fishing boat in the South China Sea; c) intimidation of the Philippines in the South China Sea; and d) threatening to annex Taiwan by force.

Clearly, Beijing’s actions over the last few years speak louder than the words of non-aggression and non-interference often mouthed by Chinese leaders. In fact, Beijing came clean about that with the on that issue in the communiqué, in order to avoid a disagreement that would spoil the meeting.

Chinese military vehicles carry DF-5B intercontinental ballistic missiles in a parade held in front of Tiananmen Gate in Beijing.

photo: VOA

Each side most likely knew that the other interpreted “one China” quite differently—China seeing Beijing as the legitimate government of China, even as the United States viewed Taipei as the one true Chinese government. However, in Paragraph 8 of that communiqué, both sides agreed that they should, “conduct their relations on the principles of respect promulgation of its Anti-Secession Law of 14 March, 2005, which declared in Article 8 that, “the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

A Congressional-Executive Agreement, otherwise known as a legislative act, is one way to promulgate an international accord.

photo: Bjoertvedt

In view of that avowal and in light of Beijing’s continued hostile actions, any reasonable person would conclude (1) that China claiming to renounce any hostile or intimidating action is preposterous, (2) that the communiqué has been abrogated by China’s own actions, and (3) that the United States is therefore no longer bound by it—if indeed it was ever bound at all.

Indeed, the United States is not bound by any communiqué because such an instrument does not meet the relevant criteria of a binding international accord. A treaty is one form of binding international accord. In the United States, a treaty comes into force through the approval—also known as “advise and consent”— of two-thirds of the members of the US Senate and ratification by the American president.

Non-binding according

A Congressional-Executive Agreement, or legislative act, is another way to promulgate an international accord. That is accomplished by both houses of the American Congress passing a bill which is then signed into law by the US president. Yet another form of international accord is established through executive action alone as the president implements an agreement with another country by his signature to the pact.

However, the word communiqué comes from the French and means merely a bulletin or a report. In the case of this communiqué, it merely attests that an American President and a Chinese Chairman met, that they discussed certain issues, and that each side

Military forces are valuable as deterrents only so long as opponents fear that they will be employed.

stated its own position. That communiqué was not a treaty, it was not a legislative act, and it certainly was not an executive agreement.

Regardless, the first American Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson advised then-President George Washington that there is a significant advantage in using a legislative act (or even an executive agreement, as subsequently validated by the US Supreme Court) as opposed to a treaty because. In Jefferson’s words, “when they [legislative acts or executive agreements] become too inconvenient, [they] can be dropped at the will of either party; whereas stipulations by whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent let a change of circumstances render them ever so bothersome.” Clearly, Beijing has dropped any pretense of adhering to what it once promised in the communiqué. It is now time that the United States cease feeling restricted in attempting to resolve issues with China. The communiqué has been formally abrogated by China anyway.

Protecting US interests

Unfortunately, some in Washington are afraid to stand up to China for fear of getting a bloody nose in the course of protecting lawful and legitimate American national interests, as well as those of a valuable ally in the region. Allowing fear of Beijing’s possible reaction to prevent American action is self-defeating.

There are different ways to interpret a “one-China” policy.

Military forces are valuable as deterrents only so long as opponents fear that they will be employed. When crises affecting American national interests elicit no military response from Washington, the US defense machine is seen as an emasculated and feeble old dog that does nothing but yelp. All other American national interests are thereby placed at risk. It is time to end the fiction of “one China,” which has not been the case since 1949. The United States must not back down in defending Taiwan.

Taiwan’s military constantly trains to defeat a Chinese attack. The defense partnership with America is key to Taiwan’s continued survival.

photo: ROC MND

Robert McCoy is a retired US Air Force Korean linguist and analyst who was stationed in Asia for over 14 years.