U.S. position on Taiwan has stayed the same

Commentary

By Joseph R. DeTrani - Tuesday, May 19, 2026

OPINION:

Xi Jinping, secretary general of the Chinese Communist Party, made abundantly clear during the recent U.S.-China summit in Beijing that the mishandling of Taiwan could lead to an “extremely dangerous situation.”

Mr. Xi said “clashes and even conflict” over Taiwan could imperil economic ties between the world’s two largest economies.

President Trump was graciously received in China, with good discussions on trade and economic issues and the need to end the flow of fentanyl precursors into the U.S. The Iran war and developments on the Korean Peninsula were also discussed, but Mr. Xi’s focus was on Taiwan.

In October 1971, when Henry Kissinger met Premier Zhou Enlai to prepare for President Nixon’s visit to China, Zhou’s first request was that the Taiwan issue be discussed and resolved first, accepting that Taiwan was an inalienable part of China.

Just months later, during Nixon’s February 1972 visit to China for meetings with Chairman Mao Zedong, both sides signed the Shanghai Communique, in which the U.S. acknowledged that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain that there is but one China and that Taiwan is part of it. It goes on to say that the U.S. does not challenge that position, but reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.

After the U.S. formally established relations with China on Jan. 1, 1979, Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act to ensure that the Taiwan issue with China was resolved peacefully. Its purpose was defined as follows: “to make clear that the U.S. decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means; to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the U.S.”

In July 1982, President Reagan reassured Taiwan and Congress that the U.S. was not abandoning Taiwan. It was, he said, insisting on a peaceful resolution of differences with China.

Reagan memorialized this commitment to Taiwan with the Six Assurances: The U.S. had not set a specific date to end arms sales to Taiwan, it had not committed to consulting with Beijing on such sales, had not committed to amending the Taiwan Relations Act, had not altered its position regarding Taiwan’s political status and would neither pressure Taipei to negotiate with Beijing nor serve as a mediator.

The U.S. position on Taiwan has been consistent: a peaceful resolution of issues between China and Taiwan, with the U.S. providing Taiwan with defensive arms sales.

The president of Taiwan, Lai Ching-te, has consistently said Taiwan is willing to engage in exchanges and cooperation with China on an “equal and dignified basis.” Because of strict preconditions from China, there have been no exchanges.

Instead, China has conducted routine patrols and large-scale military exercises in the waters and airspace surrounding Taiwan. The most recent large-scale exercises focused on anti-access, area denial and blockades.

Mr. Xi has repeatedly said that China wants a peaceful resolution of issues with Taiwan but reserves the right to use military force to unify with Taiwan. “Safeguarding peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait is the biggest common denominator between China and the U.S.”

Hopefully, China will pursue a peaceful resolution of issues with Taiwan. Indeed, ensuring strategic stability in U.S.-China relations is important for both countries and the global community. It is this stability — and friendship — that will permit the two largest economies to cooperate on myriad issues, including wars, food scarcity, nuclear proliferation, counternarcotics and counterterrorism, while ensuring that trade and economic issues continue to contribute to the well-being of both our people.

• The author is a former associate director of national intelligence. All statements of fact, opinion or analysis expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official positions or views of the U.S. government. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying U.S. government authentication of information or endorsement of the author’s views.