The perennial problem in Sino-U.S. relations, U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, has stolen newspaper headlines again, this time focusing on whether the U.S. will sell F-16cds to Taiwan. The latest speculation is that the announcement could come before October this year. Whatever the result, so long as arms were sold, China would condemn it and retaliate in the way she deems appropriate. Unfortunately, this “thorn” in the back of the bilateral relationship has remained ever since the “Shanghai Communique” of 1972 when the two countries started the course of diplomatic normalization. The 1982 “8.17” communiqué dealt specifically with the issue, but it did not overcome the dispute because the gap between the two sides was too vast to bridge at that time. Confronted with such a reality, each side was realistic enough to work together to find a way to “manage” the dispute in order to lower the risk. As a result, both made concessions to maintain a balance.

At the U.S. end, while reiterating that it had no intention of infringing on Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity and appreciating China’s endeavor to peacefully settle the Taiwan question, it pledged: “it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan, that its arms sales to Taiwan will not exceed, either in qualitative or in quantitative terms, the level of those supplied in recent years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, and that it intends to reduce gradually its sales of arms to Taiwan, leading over a period of time to a final solution.” At the Chinese end, while insisting on the position that the Taiwan issue is an internal affair of China and the arms sales issue had to be fully settled, China took into account the above-mentioned U.S. pledge and conceded to a sort of incremental resolution of the issue.

If the U.S. had abided by the “8.17” communiqué both in spirit and letter, the two countries could have greatly dampened this flash point in their bilateral relations. But unfortunately, right on the day the communiqué was signed, the United States laid bare its intention of non-adherence to the document. A statement issued by President Reagan said that the communiqué was completely in accordance with “The Taiwan Relations Act” and arms sales to Taiwan would proceed according to the TRA. In ensuing years, the U.S. repeatedly violated the communiqué and thus plunged the bilateral relationship time and again into crises. 
 
The U.S. arguments for arms sales to Taiwan sound hackneyed to the Chinese: the U.S. is obliged by the TRA to sell arms and services to Taiwan to meet the latter’s defense needs in achieving “military balance” with the mainland; the mainland’s military deployment along the southeastern coast poses “threat” to Taiwan; U.S. arms sales to Taiwan give it the confidence it needs to negotiate effectively with the mainland, hence conducive to cross-Strait relations.

People who have the least knowledge of the Taiwan issue are aware that the U.S. supplied arms to Taiwan long before the People’s Liberation Army even had missiles and other modern weaponry, and it was the American military presence in the Taiwan Strait that posed a threat to the mainland for a long period of time. For the Chinese, the argument is exactly the reverse: U.S. military intervention in the Taiwan issue is one of the reasons that propelled the PLA to accelerate its modernization. However, China has repeatedly pledged to settle the Taiwan issue peacefully as long as it is feasible, and that its military means are not aimed at Taiwanese compatriots but serve as a deterrent against secessionist forces. Without this deterrence, the Taiwan issue could not be solved peacefully.

But the United States turns a deaf ear to it. As to the argument that U.S. arms sales to Taiwan is conducive to dialogue across the Strait, people would ask: the U.S. sold large quantities of arms to Taiwan during Chen Shuibian’s time (2000-2008), but did that induce Chen to talk with the mainland and help improve cross-Strait relations? The answer is a clear-cut no. The arms sales package announced by the Bush administration in 2001 sent extremely wrong signals and boosted Chen’s secessionist arrogance, which had not only created high tension across the Strait but also seriously affected American security interests in the area, the maintenance of peace and stability. The present rapprochement across the Strait has been possible because the two sides agreed upon two basic principles, the one China principle as embodied in the “1992 Consensus” and opposition to Taiwan “independence”. American arms sales to Taiwan are in fact the stumbling block in the way of further improvement of cross-Strait relations. 

This “war of words” between China and the United State will go on and on. But what is more important is to find new ways to alleviate its damage to the bilateral relationship pending the final solution. As it is the U.S. that has violated the “8.17” communiqué, so the U.S. should take the initiative, which would serve its interests in the first place. The world configuration has changed profoundly since the “8.17” communiqué of 1982 and so has the pattern of the China-U.S. relationship. The two countries have more and more overlapping interests and shared responsibilities in world affairs. The U.S. should stand on a higher ground when looking at the arms sales issue. Even from a sheer realist point of view, it is in U.S. interests to recalculate the political cost of its Taiwan policy in general and arms sales to Taiwan in particular. In the author’s opinion, the cost of the U.S. Taiwan policy is in inverse proportion to Taiwan’s strategic value, but in direct proportion to that of the mainland. So in her own interests, the United States needs to recalculate the political cost of its arms sales to Taiwan. One option for consideration is for the U.S. to render a more positive response to what former President Jiang Zemin proposed at former President Bush’s Crawford ranch in October 2002. No one would deny the fact that there exists a linkage between U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and the PLA’s overall planning of military deployment. Genuine reductions of arm sales to Taiwan would certainly be reciprocated by China and thus diminish the military dimension of the Taiwan issue in China-U.S. relations. This would definitely be a win-win option, although an interim one at that.

Source of documents：