China's Xi and USA Biden's meeting

Reading the article of the Financial Times concerning the conversation that the two presidents had there are some issues or some hindrances with reference to normalizing and solving tensions which should be looked at first in order to begin thinking about maintaining peace and stabilizing the region.

In this article the authors wrote: "The White House said Biden stressed the need for peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait"  but first we must look at some issues. like the saying goes " the solution to the problem is at the beginning", One might ask what does this have to do with the article?  Taiwan as we know based on the one China policy is part of mainland China.  Without digging too deeply there are basic issues we can admit. The United States does not recognize Taiwan according to international standards or the geopolitical standards which govern the interaction between nations - diplomatic relations which is official recognition  of a country. 

 The United States and Taiwan on Taiwan - United States Department of State

                The U.S. and Taiwan enjoy a robust unofficial relationship. The 1979 U.S.-P.R.C.                     Joint Communique switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. In the Joint Communique, the U.S. recognized the Government of the People’s Republic  of China as  the sole legal government of China, acknowledging the Chinese  position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China. The Joint Communique also stated that the people of the U.S. will maintain cultural,                  commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan.

There are also more questions as the United States is still making clear its position where the Peoples Republic of China is concerned and Taiwan in the latest call between the two presidents on Tuesday April. 2, 2024 according to an article in the New York Times ":However, Mr. Biden reiterated to Mr. Xi that the United States abides by its “one China policy,” which recognizes the mainland People’s Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of China — while saying nothing about Taiwan’s status. 

When comes to the United States relation with Taiwan one can say that Taiwan can be left holding the bag. The reason for saying this is simple diplomatic relations with a country is what determines how and if countries interact with each other and do business have bilateral relations do commerce etc.  In the case of Taiwan the diplomatic relations is with the People's Republic of China NOT them - they do not have a seat the United Nations table the People's Republic of China has that seat and the United States being the "Leader of Free World" means that the ability to establish relations with Taiwan is in their court - they are clearly showing that diplomatic relations with Taiwan is not a priority there is not much to gain other than the Taiwan Relations Act which involves maintaining cultural - commercial and unofficial relations.  By maintaining commercial and unofficial the United States benefits from the sale of weapons to assist Taiwan in defending itself while keeping Taiwan in a state of suspension. In the international community there are tiny nations - third world countries which still maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan - the United States military power and largest economy and nuclear power is NOT able to establish diplomatic ties with Taiwan - what is this about?

These documents there is reason to believe that they were signed in the interest of the United States - "having your cake and eat it too" type policy.  Taiwan is kept or held in some uncomfortable situation where they are receiving weapons to defend themselves while the United States is openly adhering to the People's Republic of China's "One China Principle" or "One China Policy" which involves acknowledging that Taiwan belongs to the People's Republic of China - this s what gives Taiwan the weapons the diplomatic relations with "the motherland" and acknowledging "no independence for you.

When comes to the Taiwan Relations Act the sale of weapons to Taiwan with reducing the reduction of weapons there is not one moment that the sale of weapons was ever diminished.  This favors Taiwan but upon closer inspection and I would not be surprised if this becomes some issue in the future. The fact that the United States instead increased the supply of weapons to Taiwan and uses the words "the Chinese on both sides acknowledge..." and uses this to claim an ambiguous policy is making one believe that these documents were not well understood.  Also, that the United States did not give a definite timeline to end the supply of weapons to Taiwan is another part of the Act that should be looked at - the question remains: Were these documents drawn up and signed in good faith? Another question is while the United States uses these the three communiques, and the one law is the People's Republic of China only focuses on the one China policy part only? 

Taiwan - United States Department of State

Joe Biden and Xi Jinping have ‘candid’ phone call in first engagement since November (ft.com)