{
  "id": "RL30100",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30100",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 105341,
      "date": "1999-05-20",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:45:14.761941",
      "title": "U.S.-Taiwan Relations Under the Taiwan Relations Act: Lessons and Options -- Findings of a CRS Workshop",
      "summary": "This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act ( P.L. 96-8 , signed April 10,\n1979).\nAt the request of the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, the Congressional\nResearch Service (CRS), with partial funding from the Henry M. Jackson Foundation, conducted a\nworkshop to assess the lessons and options for U.S. policy stemming from the U.S. experience with\nTaiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) over the past 20 years.\n  Workshop participants saw three general sets or clusters of lessons for U.S. policy stemming\nfrom the experience in managing relations with Taiwan under the TRA over the past 20 years. They\ncentered on U.S. government-supported interactions with Taiwan, U.S. government approaches to\ndealing with cross Strait relations and other aspects of PRC-Taiwan relations, and unofficial,\nincluding so-called Track II, U.S. efforts to deal with Taiwan-mainland frictions. Participants agreed\nthat the TRA had been essential in insuring continued U.S. support for Taiwan after the break in\nrelations in 1979; that U.S. policy was seen to work best during those relatively infrequent occasions\nwhen U.S. policy makers in the Administration and Congress agreed generally on U.S. policy\npriorities that took careful account of important U.S. interests vis-a-vis Taiwan, as well as key U.S.\nconcerns in relations with the PRC; and that the important U.S. stake in cross Strait relations was best\nsecured through a carefully balanced approach that maintained an \"equilibrium of confidence\" in both\nTaipei and Beijing.\n  Looking to the future, participants favored policy options that relied on the existing language\nof the TRA to foster less constrained U.S. interaction with Taiwan while taking careful account of\nPRC interests and domestic politics. Challenges for U.S. policy included avoiding exaggerated views\nof alleged splitist trends in Taiwan domestic politics, and bridging the often deep divides between\nthe U.S. Administration and Congress over appropriate policy toward Taiwan and cross Strait issues.\nTo accomplish the latter would require a more forthcoming Administration posture toward interaction\nwith Congress over policy toward Taiwan, and restraint on perceived congressional tendencies to\n\"play politics\" with Taiwan issues, according to workshop participants. \n  While encouraging cross Strait economic exchanges, dialogues, and other measures to build\n trust\nand reduce tensions, participants said the United States should eschew any mediating role and remain\nstrongly engaged in the region to back up its objective that any solution to the issue is peaceful and\nacceptable by both sides, including the people of Taiwan. There was notable disagreement over\nwhether continued active U.S. military support for Taiwan should include theater missile defense\n(TMD) equipment and technology, and also some disagreement as to how far the United States\nshould go in supporting Taiwan's role in International Organizations.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30100",
          "sha1": "3b72431928db5731a3f27fa3fbc7f0d65c884a83",
          "filename": "files/19990520_RL30100_3b72431928db5731a3f27fa3fbc7f0d65c884a83.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19990520_RL30100_3b72431928db5731a3f27fa3fbc7f0d65c884a83.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "National Defense"
  ]
}