Talk:Taiwan Relations Act

Untitled
Removed


 * However, the validity of this arguement highly depends on whehter one regards Taiwan as part of China or regards Taiwan's legal status is yet determined after WWII.

The statement "The PRC does not recognize the legitimacy of the Taiwan Relations Act as it is viewed by them as 'an unwarranted intrusion by the USA into the internal affairs of China.'" is NPOV on its own because the statement is attributed to the PRC. It is even quoted (though I don't know where this quote was pulled from." One's opinion is entirely irrelevant. The PRC does not act based on some random Taiwanese guy's opinion. It acts on what it believe and asserts, and that is what we are trying to show. By quoting the PRC position, we are definately not agreeeing to it. Please note the difference.--Jiang 05:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PRC
- From the view of PRC, issue of Taiwan is an unfinished business of Chinese Unification by the PRC after 1949, given the fact of PRC Anti Secession Law which was drafted in 2005.

- There is no such thing as "unfinished business of Chinese Unification" since the ROC, formed in 1911 (as opposed to PRC, formed 1949) is a separate entity and itself does not recognize the legitimacy of PRC, and obviously something formed at a later date cannot RE-UNITE something that it has never owned, in this case, Taiwan. Therefore, PRC's "anti-Secession Act" is a show for its own people and a joke for those who matter, as PRC had itself seceded from the ROC, and has no right to claim ROC territories, unless, of course, that we replace "unification" with a term more suitable of describing what the PRC is doing against the ROC: coup d'etat. My suggestion is that we should keep PRC's opinion out of the TRA article itself, and organize it into a separate page so people don't mistake a nation's military aggression for global political consensus.

-- PRC opinion on TRA is important since TRA is about chinese territory. while US does not accept PRC interpretation of one china, it does govern itself to the principle of "one china", mind you that one china was originally a ROC policy. imagine if China has a law about native american, will US opinion about that law not be included? of course not, US has the right to defend it sovereignty and so does China. saying PRC "ceded" from ROC make no sense, PRC declare itself as the sole representative of China, adopting the one china policy created by ROC in the 1920s against the warlords. why would you recognise ROC if you think PRC cannot succeed ROC, because by that logic ROC can't even exist since Beiyang was effectively annex by Japan in WWII and ROC never rule the government that rule China in 1911... this ROC is not the same ROC as that lead by Beiyang in Beijing, this is the Nanjing regime. so know your history before you even want to question it. lol. as to why PRC is the legit government with regard to this document? because this is a US document and US recognise PRC as a country and ROC is not recognised as a country by US... Akinkhoo (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed link
This website is somewhat crankish... If someone thinks this is notable enough to warrant an article then it should be a separate article.


 * Is Taiwan a Sovereign and Independent Nation under the terms of the Taiwan Relations Act?

Roadrunner 03:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of TRA
TRA defines Taiwan as a state, but does that mean Taiwan is only and would becoming like a state under TRA (recognized as ROC before the formation of TRA)? Since TRA is an act passed by the American Congress, so does that mean Taiwan is a puppet state under US control?

If the US merely acknowledges PRC's position to Taiwan, why does the US decides not to have diplomatic tie with Taiwan and establish embassy there in exchange with the AIT?

The act does not have intervention wordings so it is more like a foreign assistance act, if so, why does the US not to give unconditional support on the arms and weapons as Taiwan needed?

- Yes, and I don't see how these questions contribute to the discussion, please stop nonsensical speculations and stick to the facts and the articles included by the TRA.

To sum up, this act is formulated for the balance of US in Asia and US interest across the Taiwan Strait, not for either side of the Taiwan Strait.


 * at the end of the document, it defines "Taiwan" as: the islands of Taiwan and the Pescadores, the people on those islands, corporations and other entities and associations created or organized under the laws applied on those islands, and the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the United States as the Republic of China prior to January 1, 1979, and any successor governing authorities (including political subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof).
 * why would US give unconditional support if it doesn't benefit them? the act only require US to sell, the taipei must still agree to pay of them in order for US to sell...
 * yes, it was really a cold war leftover... Akinkhoo 15:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Defense of Taiwan
Why does the article go to great lengths to deny that american forces will defend taiwan in the event of an armed assualt by China? This is totally false and is in contrast to the act itself as well as the interpretation of every major media outlet. Looks like this article has been cleansed by the PRC....Macutty (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't think it was too bad, certainly not as bad as it would be if the PRC had gotten a hold on it, but I did make some changes to make it less pushy and to mention the strategic ambiguity policy.Readin (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The term "strategic ambiguity' is no longer valid in describing the US policy towards taiwan as quoted here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/hl808.cfm . What are our thoughts on this and how do you thinnk it should be reflected in the article? Macutty (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I don't time right now for more thorough research. Very quickly though, the article you link to is from 2003. At the beginning of the Bush administration, he said that the U.S. would defend Taiwan.  However I believe (but can't promise) that he has since then been less clear and has returned to strategic ambiguity. Readin (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It interesting this was last talk about in the Bush administration as we now have the Trump administration. the TRA was written primarily because congress was not comfortable with the president having the power to determine if US would defend Taiwan or not, this act is not about if US will or will not defending Taiwan, but preventing the US president from making that decision unilaterally or worst, use Taiwan as a bargaining chip. and with Trump as president, you can say the foresight of congress is amazing! they already written a law to prevent someone like Trump from screwing things up! anyway, how the TRA should be understood is from the POV of the congress and how TRA is use by the congress to overwrite any document the US president make with his Chinese counterpart. there are other details in the TRA as well, but they are all how congress want the relationship to be maintain, it very much a leash on the president and his administration. Akinkhoo (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The TRA 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 capabilities” . I think this pretty clearly states that American forces are obligated to defend Taiwan, in the face of an act of aggression by the PRC or any other state. As such, I am going to edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.51.172.71 (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * that only means arms sales. key word is "self-defense" and "articles". the act does not promise nor deny support, that is the point! if you tell them you will defend them, why would they still buy weapon from you? if US want to declare war on China, they can do it with or without the act, that is not the purpose of having this act. the purpose of this act is to provide a limiter as to what the US president can and cannot do without their authorization, in this case, it clarifies that arm sales is the status quo and the US president cannot block the sales of arms just to cut a deal with China, that is something both Obama and Trump has tried to do, scrapping a billion arm sales to Taiwan in exchange for 10 billion dollar worth of aircraft orders is very attempting afterall, the act forces the president to comply to sales, this is why the president always sell crap to Taiwan, so it can comply with TRA while still able to benefit from friendly trading relation with China... Akinkhoo (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Direct quote not specified as such
"The US position that Taiwan's legal status is yet to be determined and that Taiwan is not part of China is the very foundation of the Taiwan Relations Act. If a majority of the people on Taiwan decide that the ROC does have sovereignty over Taiwan and/or that Taiwan is part of China (either the ROC or PRC), then the TRA will be abrogated, since the US cannot intervene in the domestic affairs of foreign nations.[5]"

These sentences are lifted directly from the editorial on Taipei Times. I believe it should be marked as such and attributed to the author. I do not know this topic well and whether this is a neutral enough statement so I will leave it for someone else. Tagging original editor. Trishmapow2 (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I can't find any other reference that states that's the case. Briefly looked over the original Act as well. Decided to remove the statement until there's some source that isn't opinion, and would love there to be some source to the quote! Jevon (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)