Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The study examines the US policy stance towards Taiwan during the Biden administration. By studying the broad contours of the policy, the article examines patterns of continuity or change in the policy of successive US administrations towards Taiwan. Within this context, the study analyzes how Taiwan has configured the US-China and cross-strait relations. Furthermore, given the disputed status of Taiwan, the study seeks to determine the prospects for stability or instability in the Asia-Pacific region. Incorporating structural realism as a theoretical framework, the article adopts a qualitative research methodology, using content analysis as a research tool. It employs primary and secondary data using archival research. Rhetorical euphoria has made Taipei a flashpoint in increasing US-China hostilities. The article argues that the US and China ignore the ‘peaceful resolution’ of the Taiwan dispute entailed in their historic agreements. The Shanghai Communiqué (1972), the Taiwan Relations Act (1979) and the Six Assurances in the U.S-China Joint Communiqué (1982) all laid emphasis on Taiwan's peaceful unification. Contrarily, Taipei's greater international integration, diplomatic and military protocol, and initiatives like the Taiwan Policy Act have revitalized Taiwan in Biden's Indo-Pacific security agenda. The US Taiwan Policy Act has alarmingly replaced ‘minimum defense’ with ‘asymmetric deterrence’ in order to defend Taiwan.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Sumeera Imran
National Defence University
Humayun Javed
School of International Relations
Journal of Globalization Studies
New York University
National Defence University
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Imran et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/68e67cb4b6db643587606864 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.30884/jogs/2024.01.06
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: