Categories
Featured U.S. Government

Taiwan in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 2025

Update, May 31, 2024

On this date, the House Committee on Armed Services reported (amended) the NDAA with the United States House of Representatives.

The reported version included several Taiwan provisions:

Logistical Requirements to Deliver F-16 Block 70/72 Fighter Aircraft to Taiwan
The committee is concerned about delays in F-16 Block 70/72 Fighter Aircraft Foreign Military Sales deliveries to Taiwan. Originally intended to be delivered in 2025/2026 the 66 F-16 Block 70/72 Fighter Aircraft are now expected to be delivered in 2026/2027. On top of these delays, the logistical requirements to ensure these deliveries occur are complex.
Therefore, the committee directs the Commander, U.S. Transportation Command, in coordination with the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than December 1, 2025, on the logistical and tactical plan to deliver these fighter aircraft to Taiwan. The briefing should cover:
(1) the plan for in-flight refueling of the F-16 Block 70/72 Fighter Aircraft en route to Taiwan, including the number and type of refueling tankers required and the number of times the F-16 Block 70/72 Fighter Aircraft will need to be refueled while in flight; and
(2) any variables that could further delay delivery of the aircraft to Taiwan including new technology integration and modification.

United States and Taiwan Cooperation
The committee supports U.S. cooperation with Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act. The committee commends efforts to enable Taiwan’s self-defense capabilities in an effort to strengthen U.S.-Taiwan cooperation. The oceanic global commons, including the Taiwan Strait, are significant to global commerce, and the stability of the western Pacific region is vital to the economic stability of the world. United States cooperation with Taiwan supports maintenance of this stability. Accordingly, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue to advise and to train with Taiwan’s defense forces and to leverage other engagements in the Indo-Pacific theater that will support U.S. cooperation with Taiwan. The committee also supports current and future Foreign Military Sales of defense articles to Taiwan and to other countries in the Indo-Pacific region. Sales of U.S. equipment such as the Harpoon missile and other items will contribute to credible deterrence of competitors attempting to destabilize the Indo-Pacific region.


Update, April 18, 2024

On this date, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2025 was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives as H.R.8070. The NDAA was introduced as the “Service Member Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024.” It was then referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.

Categories
Featured U.S. Government

Taiwan in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 2024

Update, December 22, 2023

On this date, U.S. President Joe Biden signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2023.

The bill became Public Law No: 118-31 and contained several Taiwan provisions:

SEC. 1301. Sense of Congress on Defense Alliances and Partnerships in the Indo-Pacific Region.
(6) strengthening the United States partnership with Taiwan, consistent with the Three Communiques, the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8; 22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.), and the Six Assurances, with the goal of improving Taiwan’s defensive capabilities and promoting peaceful cross-strait relations;

SEC. 1307. Sense of Congress on Taiwan Defense Relations
It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) the United States’ one China policy, as guided by the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8; 22 U.S.C. et seq.), the Three Communiques between the United States and the People’s Republic of China, and the Six Assurances provided by the United States to Taiwan in July 1982, is the foundation for United States-Taiwan relations;

(2) as set forth in the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States 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, and that any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including boycotts and embargoes, is of grave concern to the United States;

(3) the increasingly coercive and aggressive behavior of the People’s Republic of China toward Taiwan is contrary to the expectation of the peaceful resolution of the future of Taiwan;

(4) as set forth in the Taiwan Relations Act, the capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan should be maintained;

(5) the United States should continue to support the development of capable, ready, and modern defense forces necessary for Taiwan to maintain sufficient defensive capabilities, including by –
(A) supporting acquisition by Taiwan of defense articles and services through foreign military sales, direct commercial sales, and industrial cooperation, with an emphasis on capabilities that support an asymmetric strategy;
(B) ensuring timely review of and response to requests of Taiwan for defense articles and services;
(C) conducting practical training and military exercises with Taiwan that enable Taiwan to maintain sufficient defensive capabilities, as described in the Taiwan Relations Act;
(D) exchanges between defense officials and officers of the United States and Taiwan at the strategic, policy, and functional levels, consistent with the Taiwan Travel Act (Public Law 115-135; 132 Stat. 341), especially for the purposes of– (i) enhancing cooperation on defense planning; (ii) improving the interoperability of the military forces of the United States and Taiwan; and (iii) improving the reserve force of Taiwan;
(E) cooperating with Taiwan to improve its ability to employ military capabilities in asymmetric ways, as described in the Taiwan Relations Act; and
(F) expanding cooperation in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief; and

(6) the United States should increase its support to a free and open society in the face of aggressive efforts by the Government of the People’s Republic of China to curtail or influence the free exercise of rights and democratic franchise.

SEC 1309. Training, Advising, and Institutional Capacity-Building Program for Military Forces of Taiwan.
(a) Establishment.–Consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act (22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.) and pursuant to section 5504 of the Taiwan Enhanced Resilience Act (22 U.S.C. 3353), the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with appropriate officials of Taiwan, shall establish a comprehensive training, advising, and institutional capacity-building program for the military forces of Taiwan using the authorities provided in chapter 16 of title 10, United States Code, and other applicable statutory authorities available to the Secretary of Defense.

SEC. 1518. Military Cybersecurity Cooperation with Taiwan
(a) Requirement.–Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in coordination with the Commander of the United States Cyber Command and the Commander of the United States Indo-Pacific Command, shall seek to engage with appropriate officials of Taiwan for the purpose of cooperating with the military forces of Taiwan on defensive military cybersecurity activities.

(b) Identification of Activities. –In cooperating on defensive military cybersecurity activities with the military forces of Taiwan under subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense may carry out efforts to identify cooperative activities to–
(1) defend military networks, infrastructure, and systems;
(2) counter malicious cyber activity that has compromised such military networks, infrastructure, and systems;
(3) leverage United States commercial and military cybersecurity technology and services to harden and defend such military networks, infrastructure, and systems; and
(4) conduct combined cybersecurity training activities and exercises.

(c) Briefings.
(1) Requirement.–Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, shall provide to the appropriate congressional committees a briefing on the implementation of this section.
(2) Contents.–The briefing under paragraph (1) shall include the following: (A) A description of the feasibility and advisability of cooperating with the Ministry of Defense of Taiwan on the defensive military cybersecurity activities identified pursuant to subsection (b). (B) An identification of any challenges and resources that would be needed to addressed to conduct such cooperative activities. (C) An overview of efforts undertaken pursuant to this section. (D) Any other matters the Secretary determines relevant.

(d) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined. —In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means–
(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.

SEC. 7407. Independent Study on Economic Impact of Military Invasion of Taiwan by People’s Republic of China.
(a) Requirement. —Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall seek to enter into a contract with an eligible entity to conduct a comprehensive study on the global economic impact of a military invasion of Taiwan by the People’s Republic of China or certain other aggressive or coercive actions taken by the People’s Republic of China with respect to Taiwan.

(b) Matters Included. —The study required under subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) An assessment of the economic impact globally, in the United States, and in the People’s Republic of China that would result from an invasion of Taiwan by the People’s Republic of China under various potential invasion and response scenarios, including with respect to the impact on–(A) supply chains; (B) trade flows; (C) financial markets; (D) sovereign debt; and (E) gross domestic product, unemployment, and other key economic indicators.
(2) An assessment of the economic impact globally, in the United States, and in the People’s Republic of China that would result from of an aggressive or coercive military, economic, or other action taken by the People’s Republic of China with respect to Taiwan that falls short of an invasion, including as a result of a blockade of Taiwan.
(3) The development of economic policy options, to include sanctions and supply chain restrictions, designed to cause escalating impacts on the economy of the People’s Republic of China during a pre-conflict phase.

(c) Report. —
(1) In general.–Not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the eligible entity that the Director of National Intelligence enters into an agreement with under subsection (a) shall submit to the Director a report containing the results of the study conducted under such subsection.
(2) Submission to congress.–Not later than 30 days after the date the Director receives the report under paragraph (1), the Director shall submit the report to– (A) the congressional intelligence committees; (B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and (C) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
(3) Form of report. –The report required under this subsection shall be submitted in unclassified form but may include a classified annex.

(d) Eligible Entity Defined. –In this section, the term “eligible entity” means a federally funded research and development center or nongovernmental entity which has–
(1) a primary focus on studies and analysis;
(2) experience and expertise relevant to the study required under subsection (a); and
(3) a sufficient number of personnel with the appropriate security clearance to conduct such study.


Update, December 14, 2023

On this date, the U.S. House of Representatives agreed on the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2670. The House moved on motion to suspend the rules and agree to the conference report (2/3 required) by a Yea/Nay vote of 310-118.

The NDAA 2024 now goes to the President’s desk to be signed.


Update, December 13, 2023

On this date, the U.S. Senate agreed on the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2670 by a Yea/Nay vote of 87-13. The report now goes to the House of Representatives chamber for a vote.


Update, December 7, 2023

On this date, the Conference Committee released the reconciled fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (as Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2670). The report now goes to the Senate and House chambers for a final vote.


Update, July 27, 2023

On this date, the U.S. Senate passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 (as S.2226) by a Yea/Nay vote of 86-11. The bill now goes to Conference Committee for reconciliation of the two versions (House and Senate).


Update, July 14, 2023

On this date, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (as H.R.2670) by a Yea/Nay vote of 219-210.


Update, July 11, 2023

On this date, the Senate Armed Services Committee filed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 (NDAA) with the United States Senate as S. 2226. The action was led by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) and Ranking Member Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS).

The filed text had several Taiwan provisions:

SEC. 1242. Training, Advising, And Institutional Capacity-Building Program For Military Forces Of Taiwan.
(a) Establishment.—Consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act (22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.) and the Taiwan Enhanced Resilience Act (subtitle A of title LV of Public Law 117–263), the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with appropriate officials of Taiwan, shall establish a comprehensive training, advising, and institutional capacity building program for the military forces of Taiwan using the authorities provided in chapter 16 of title 10, United States Code, and other applicable statutory authorities available to the Secretary of Defense.

(b) Purposes.—The purposes of the program established under subsection (a) shall be—
(1) to enable a layered defense of Taiwan by the military forces of Taiwan, including in support of the use of an asymmetric defense strategy;
(2) to enhance interoperability between the United States Armed Forces and the military forces of Taiwan;
(3) to encourage information sharing between the United States Armed Forces and the military forces of Taiwan;
(4) to promote joint force employment; and
(5) to improve professional military education and the civilian control of the military.

(c) Elements.—The program established under subsection (a) shall include efforts to improve—
(1) the tactical proficiency of the military forces of Taiwan;
(2) the operational employment of the military forces of Taiwan to conduct a layered defense of Taiwan, including in support of an asymmetric defense strategy;
(3) the employment of joint military capabilities by the military forces of Taiwan, including through joint military training, exercises, and planning;
(4) the reform and integration of the reserve military forces of Taiwan;
(5) the use of defense articles and services transferred from the United States to Taiwan;
(6) the integration of the military forces of Taiwan with relevant civilian agencies, including the All-Out Defense Mobilization Agency;
(7) the ability of Taiwan to participate in bilateral and multilateral military exercises, as appropriate;
(8) the defensive cyber capabilities and practices of the Ministry of National Defense of Taiwan; and
(9) any other matter the Secretary of Defense considers relevant.

(d) Deconfliction, Coordination, And Concurrence.—The Secretary of Defense shall deconflict, coordinate, and seek the concurrence of the Secretary of State and the heads of other relevant departments and agencies with respect to activities carried out under the program required by subsection (a), in accordance with the requirements of the authorities provided in chapter 16 of title 10, United States Code, and other applicable stat tory authorities available to the Secretary of Defense.

(e) Reporting.—As part of each annual report on Taiwan defensive military capabilities and intelligence support required by section 1248 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (Public Law 117–81; 135 Stat. 1988), the Secretary of Defense shall provide—
(1) an update on efforts made to address each element under subsection (c); and
(2) an identification of any authority or resource shortfall that inhibits such efforts.

SEC. 1247. Extension And Modification Of Certain Temporary Authorizations.
(a) In General.—Section 1244 of the James M.Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (Public Law 117–236; 136 Stat. 2844) is amended—
(1) in the section heading, by striking “OTHER MATTERS” and inserting “TAIWAN”; and
(2) in subsection (a)— (A) in paragraph (1)— (i) in subparagraph (B), by inserting “or the Government of Taiwan” after “the Government of Ukraine”; and (ii) in subparagraph (C), by inserting “or the Government of Taiwan” after “the Government of Ukraine”; (B) in paragraph (5)— (i) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following: “(A) the replacement of defense articles from stocks of the Department of Defense provided to—“(i) the Government of Ukraine; “(ii) foreign countries that have provided support to Ukraine at the request of the United States; “(iii) the Government of Taiwan; or “(iv) foreign countries that have provided support to Taiwan at the request of the United States; or”; and (ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting “or the Government of Taiwan” before the period at the end; (C) in paragraph (7), by striking “September 30, 2024” and inserting “September 30,2028”; (D) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and (E) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new paragraph (7): “(7) Notification.—Not later than 7 days after the exercise of authority under subsection (a) the Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional defense committees of the specific authority exercises, the relevant contract, and the estimated reductions in schedule.’’.

(b) Clerical Amendments.—
(1) The table of contents at the beginning of the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (Public Law 117–236; 136 Stat. 2395) is amended by striking the item relating to section 1244 and inserting the following: “Sec. 1244. Temporary authorizations related to Ukraine and Taiwan.” (2) The table of contents at the beginning of title XII of the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (Public Law 117–236; 136 Stat. 2820) is amended by striking the item relating to section 1244 and inserting the following: “Sec. 1244. Temporary authorizations related to Ukraine and Taiwan.”

SEC. 1252. Military Cybersecurity Cooperation With Taiwan.
(a) Requirement.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in coordination with the Commander of the United States Cyber Command and the Commander of the United States Indo-Pacific Command, shall seek to engage with appropriate officials of Taiwan for the purpose of expanding cooperation on military cybersecurity activities using the authorities under chapter 16 of title 10, United States Code, and other applicable statutory authorities available to the Secretary of Defense.

(b) Cooperation Efforts.—In expanding the cooperation of military cybersecurity activities between the Department of Defense and the military forces of Taiwan under subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense may carry out efforts—
(1) to actively defend military networks, infrastructure, and systems;
(2) to eradicate malicious cyber activity that has compromised such networks, infrastructure, and systems;
(3) to leverage United States commercial and military cybersecurity technology and services to harden and defend such networks, infrastructure, and systems; and
(4) to conduct combined cybersecurity training activities and exercises.

(c) Briefings.—
(1) Requirement.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, shall provide to the appropriate committees of Congress a briefing on the implementation of this section.
(2) Contents.—The briefing under paragraph (1) shall include the following: (A) A description of the feasibility and advisability of expanding the cooperation on military cybersecurity activities between the Department of Defense and the military forces of Taiwan. (B) An identification of any challenges and resources that need to be addressed so as to expand such cooperation. (C) An overview of efforts undertaken pursuant to this section. (D) Any other matter the Secretary considers relevant.

(d) Appropriate Committees Of Congress Defined.—In this section, the term “appropriate committees of Congress” means—
(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.

SEC. 1255. Report On Range Of Consequences Of War With The People’s Republic Of China
(a) In General.—Not later than December 1, 2024, the Director of the Office of Net Assessment shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the range of geopolitical and economic consequences of a United States-People’s Republic of China conflict in 2030.

(b) Elements.—The report required by subsection (a) shall
(1) account for potential—… (D) impacts on the civilian populations of Japan, Taiwan, Australia, and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region …

SEC. 1260. Semiannual Briefings On Military Of The People’s Republic Of China.
(a) In General.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and not less frequently than every 180 days thereafter through March 30, 2027, the Secretary of Defense shall provide to the congressional defense committees a briefing on—
(1) the military activities of the People’s Republic of China with respect to Taiwan and the South China Sea;
(2) efforts by the Department of Defense to engage with the People’s Liberation Army; and
(3) United States efforts to enable the defense of Taiwan and bolster maritime security in the South China Sea.

(b) Elements.—Each briefing required by subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) An update on— (A) military developments of the People’s Republic of China relating to any possible Taiwan or South China Sea contingency, including upgrades to the weapon systems of the People’s Republic of China, the procurement of new weapons by the People’s Republic of China, and changes to the posture of the People’s Liberation Army; (B) military equipment acquired by Taiwan pursuant to the Presidential drawdown authority under section 506(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2318(a)) or through the direct commercial sales or foreign military sales processes; (C) United States efforts to deter aggression by the People’s Republic of China in the Indo-Pacific region, including any campaigning or exercise activities conducted by the United States; and (D) United States efforts to train the military forces of Taiwan and allies and partners in Southeast Asia.
(2) The most recent information regarding the readiness of or preparations by the People’s Liberation Army to potentially conduct aggressive military action against Taiwan.
(3) A description of any military activity carried out during the preceding quarter by the People’s Republic of China in the vicinity of Taiwan.
(4) A description of engagements by Department of Defense officials with the People’s Liberation Army, including with respect to maintaining open lines of communication, establishing crisis management capabilities, and deconfliction of military activities.
(5) Any other matter the Secretary considers relevant.

SEC. 1266. Assessment Of Absorptive Capacity Of Military Forces Of Taiwan.
(a) Report.—
(1) In General.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the absorptive capacity of the military forces of Taiwan for military capabilities provided and approved by the United States for delivery to Taiwan in the last 10 years, including the date of projected or achieved initial and full operational capabilities.
(2) Briefing Requirement.—Not later than 30 days after the delivery of the required report, the Secretary shall provide a briefing on the report to the appropriate committees of Congress.
(3) Form.—The required report shall be provided in classified form with an unclassified cover letter.

(b) Definitions.—In this section:
(1) Absorptive Capacity.—The term “absorptive capacity” means the capacity of the recipient unit to achieve initial operational capability, including to operate, maintain, sustain, deploy, and employ to operational effect, a defense article or service for its intended end-use.
(2) Appropriate Committees Of Congress.—The term “appropriate committees of Congress” means— (A) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and (B) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

SEC. 1267. Analysis Of Risks And Implications Of Potential Sustained Military Blockade Of Taiwan By The People’s Republic Of China.
(a) Analysis Required.
(1) In General.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall complete a comprehensive analysis of the risks and implications of a sustained military blockade of Taiwan by the People’s Republic of China.
(2) Elements.—The analysis required by paragraph (1) shall include the following: (A) An assessment of the means by which the People’s Republic of China could execute a sustained military blockade of Taiwan, including the most likely courses of action through which the People’s Republic of China could accomplish such a blockade. (B) An identification of indications and warnings of a potential sustained military blockade of Taiwan by the People’s Republic of China, and the likely timelines for such indications and warnings. (C) An identification of other coercive actions the People’s Republic of China may potentially take before or independently of such a blockade, including the seizure of outlying islands of Taiwan. (D) An assessment of the impact of such a blockade on the ability of Taiwan to sustain its military capabilities, economy, and population. (E) An assessment of threats to, and other potential negative impacts on, the United States homeland during such a blockade scenario. (F) An assessment of key military operational problems presented by such a blockade. (G) An assessment of the concept-required military capabilities necessary to address the problems identified under subparagraph (F). (H) An assessment of challenges to escalation management. (I) An assessment of military or nonmilitary options to counter or retaliate against such a blockade or the seizure of outlying islands of Taiwan, including through horizontal escalation. (J) An assessment of the extent to which such a blockade is addressed by the Joint Warfighting Concept and Joint Concept for Competing. (K) An identification of necessary changes to United States Armed Forces force design, doctrine, and tactics, techniques, and procedures for responding to or mitigating the impact of such a blockade. (L) An assessment of the role of United States partners and allies in addressing the threats and challenges posed by a such a potential blockade. (M) Any other matter the Secretary of Defense considers relevant.

(b) Interagency Engagement.—Not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall seek to engage with the head of any other appropriate Federal department or agency—
(1) regarding the threats and challenges posed by a potential sustained military blockade of Taiwan by the People’s Republic of China; and
(2) to better understand potential options for a response by the United States Government to such a blockade.

(c) Report.—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a classified report—
(1) on the assessment required by paragraph (1) of subsection (a), including all elements described in paragraph (2) of that subsection; and
(2) the interagency engagements conducted under subsection (b).

(d) Appropriate Committees Of Congress Defined.—In this section, the term “appropriate committees of Congress” means—
(1) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.


Update, June 30, 2023

On this date, the House Committee on Armed Services reported their amended version of the NDAA 2024 with the United States House of Representatives.

The reported version included several Taiwan provisions:

SEC. 1070. Plan for Taiwan Noncombatant Evacuation Operations.
(a) Plan.—The Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, shall maintain a sufficient evacuation plan that is suitable for execution as a noncombatant evacuation operations plan or any other evacuation mission conducted by the Department of Defense from Taiwan.

(b) Annual Review and Update.—On an annual basis, the Secretary of Defense shall—
(1) review the plan required under subsection (a)and update such plan as the Secretary determines necessary; and
(2) submit to Congress certification that the plan is either sufficient or needs to be updated.

(c) Congressional Briefings.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and quarterly thereafter, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, and Capabilities shall provide to the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives an unclassified and classified briefing on the plan required under subsection (a).

SEC. 1304. Sense Of Congress On Taiwan Defense Relations.
It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8; 22 U.S.C. et seq.) and the Six Assurances provided by the United States to Taiwan in July 1982 are the foundation for United States-Taiwan relations;

(2) as set forth in the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States 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, and that any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including boycotts and embargoes, is of grave concern to the United States;

(3) the increasingly coercive and aggressive behavior of the People’s Republic of China toward Taiwan is contrary to the expectation of the peaceful resolution of the future of Taiwan;

(4) as set forth in the Taiwan Relations Act, the capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan should be maintained;

(5) the United States should continue to support the development of capable, ready, and modern defense forces necessary for Taiwan to maintain sufficient defensive capabilities, including by—
(A) supporting acquisition by Taiwan of defense articles and services through foreign military sales, direct commercial sales, and industrial cooperation, with an emphasis on capabilities that support an asymmetric strategy;
(B) ensuring timely review of and response to requests of Taiwan for defense articles and services;
(C) conducting practical training and military exercises with Taiwan that enable Taiwan to maintain sufficient defensive capabilities, as described in the Taiwan Relations Act;
(D) exchanges between defense officials and officers of the United States and Taiwan at the strategic, policy, and functional levels, consistent with the Taiwan Travel Act (Public Law 115-135; 132 Stat. 341), especially for the purposes of — (i) enhancing cooperation on defense planning; (ii) improving the interoperability of the military forces of the United States and Taiwan; and; (iii) improving the reserve force of Taiwan;
(E) cooperating with Taiwan to improve its ability to employ military capabilities in asymmetric ways, as described in the Taiwan Relations Act; and
(F) expanding cooperation in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief; and

(6) the United States should increase its support to a free and open society in the face of aggressive efforts by the Government of the People’s Republic of China to curtail or influence the free exercise of rights and democratic franchise.

SEC. 1305. Briefing On Multi-Year Plan To Fulfill Defensive Requirements Of Military Forces Of Taiwan.
(a) Briefing Required.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall brief the appropriate congressional committees on the status of the efforts to develop and implement the joint multi-year plan to fulfill defensive requirements of military forces of Taiwan required under section 5506 of the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (Public Law 117-263; 22 U.S.C. 3355).

(b) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—
(1) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.

SEC. 1309. Expansion Of International Technology Focused Partnerships And Experimentation Activities In The Indo-Pacific.
(a) Establishment.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall develop a plan and roadmap to—
….
(3) identify and accelerate the fielding of new capabilities and critical technologies that would improve Taiwan’s self-defense capabilities…

SEC. 1505. Military Cybersecurity Cooperation With Taiwan.
(a) Requirement.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in concurrence with the Secretary of State and in coordination with the Commander of the United States Cyber Command and the Commander of the United States Indo-Pacific Command, shall seek to cooperate with the Ministry of Defense of Taiwan on defensive military cybersecurity activities.

(b) Identification of Activities.—In cooperating on defensive military cybersecurity activities with the Ministry of Defense of Taiwan under subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense may carry out efforts to identify cooperative activities to—
(1) defend military networks, infrastructure, and systems;
(2) counter malicious cyber activity that has compromised such military networks, infrastructure, and systems;
(3) leverage United States commercial and military cybersecurity technology and services to harden and defend such military networks, infrastructure, and systems; and
(4) conduct combined cybersecurity training activities and exercises.

(c) Briefings.
(1) Requirement.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, shall provide to the appropriate congressional committees a briefing on the implementation of this section.
(2) Contents.—The briefing under paragraph (1) shall include the following: (A) A description of the feasibility and advisability of cooperating with the Ministry of Defense of Taiwan on the defensive military cybersecurity activities identified pursuant to subsection (b); (B) An identification of any challenges and resources that would be needed to addressed to conduct such cooperative activities; (C) An overview of efforts undertaken pursuant to this section; (D) Any other matters the Secretary determines relevant.

(d) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined. —In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—
(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.


Update, June 23, 2023

On this date, the Senate Armed Services Committee completed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2024 .

The executive summary of the draft bill included Taiwan as an important priority:

Major Highlights:
(1) Supports the objectives of the National Defense Strategy, including defending the U.S.
homeland; deterring adversaries; prevailing in long-term strategic competition; and
building a resilient Joint Force:

– Establishes a comprehensive training, advising, and institutional
capacity-building program for the military forces of Taiwan.

Strengthening U.S. Posture in the Indo-Pacific Region
– Establishes a comprehensive training, advising, and institutional
capacity-building program for the military forces of Taiwan.
– Requires engagement with appropriate officials of Taiwan for the purpose of
expanding cooperation on military cybersecurity activities.


Update, June 22, 2023

On this date, the House Armed Services Committee finished its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024.

The summary of the committee’s draft version included support for Taiwan:

Support for Taiwan and Pacific Allies:
– Reaffirms U.S. support to the defense of Taiwan.
– Authorizes U.S. Special Operations Forces to continue training Taiwan and other partner nations in resisting the aggression and malign influence from China.
– Fully funds military exercises with our allies and partners in the Pacific to counter China’s growing reach.
– Strengthens military cybersecurity cooperation with Taiwan.
– Encourages the expansion of local military acquisition agreements with Pacific Island nations to improve bilateral relationships and counter the CCP’s increased presence and activity.
– Improves the training and development of the security cooperation workforce to expedite the delivery of Foreign Military Sales to Taiwan and other partners.


Update, April 18, 2023

On this date, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2024 was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives as H.R.2670. It was then referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.

For the 2023 version of this post, see Taiwan in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 2023

Categories
Taiwan Government

MND Paper and Presentation: Taiwan Force Structure Adjustment for Enhancing All-Out Defense

Taiwan Force Structure Adjustment for Enhancing All-Out Defense
by
Horng-Huei “Alex” Po, Vice Minister of Defense (Policy), Ministry of National Defense


The US-Taiwan Business Council recently received copies of a paper and presentation on Force Structure Adjustment for Enhancing All-Out Defense, given by Horng-Huei “Alex” Po, the Vice Minister of Defense (Policy) at Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense (MND).

Excerpt from the MND paper:

The shift of the conscription service from 4 months to one year is a big national policy. After assessing for two years, drawing experiences from the conscription system of democratic countries in the world, and considering national security, we will shift to the 1-year conscription service under the Military Service System Act. Starting from January 1st 2024, men who were born in 2005 will be drafted under the 1-year conscription service. After going through complete military training, they can take the responsibility to safeguard the homeland. We will continue to open for public opinions in order to make the adjustment perfect for the public. The shift also shows ROC’s resolution to stay steadfast in holding the value of freedom and democracy. We hope that the youth realize that it is every young Taiwanese’s glorious mission and obligation to protect their country. They need to rise to the challenge of military training with courage. We request every fellow citizen’s support so that we may ensure the sustainable development of the ROC and the well-being of the people of Taiwan.

The US-Taiwan Business Council is pleased to share these documents. Please see below:

Taiwan Force Structure Adjustment for Enhancing All-Out Defense – Presentation

Taiwan Force Structure Adjustment for Enhancing All-Out Defense – Paper

Categories
Press Releases U.S. Government

USTBC Comments on the Proposed Foreign Military Sale of Volcano Anti-Tank Systems to Taiwan

Press Release:
The US-Taiwan Business Council Comments on the Proposed Foreign Military Sale of Volcano Anti-Tank Systems to Taiwan

(Arlington, Virginia, December 29, 2022)

The US-Taiwan Business Council today welcomed the announcement of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Taiwan of Volcano anti-tank munition-laying systems and associated equipment at an estimated total cost of US$180 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) delivered the required certifications notifying Congress of the proposed Taiwan arms sale on December 28, 2022.

The published Congressional Notification (transmittal number 22-70) is for Volcano (vehicle-launched) anti-tank munition-laying systems, M977A4 HEMTT 10-Ton cargo trucks, M87A1 Anti-Tank munitions, training and test munitions, and related elements of spare parts, engineering, technical, logistical, and other program support.

The US-Taiwan Business Council welcomes the continued security assistance support for Taiwan provided by the United States. Council President Rupert Hammond-Chambers commented on today’s sale, “The Biden Administration continues its steady drumbeat of selling munitions to Taiwan. The Volcano system is a useful munition should the PLA successfully establish a bridgehead on Taiwan soil. It is relatively inexpensive, mobile, and easy to deploy – which fits with the administration’s existing guidelines for arms sales to the island.

Source: See the DSCA website at https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales.

Additional Data:

For more details on Taiwan arms sales, please visit our dedicated defense website at www.ustaiwandefense.com. The post “Taiwan Arms Sales Notified to Congress 1990-2022” contains charts showing a summary of arms sales data by year, along with a link to the raw data compiled by the Council from DSCA and other sources.

Categories
U.S. Government

Taiwan in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 2023

Update, December 23, 2022

On this date, U.S. President Joe Biden signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2023.


Update, December 15, 2022

On this date, the U.S. Senate passed the bipartisan, bicameral text of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2023 by a vote of 83-11.

The NDAA 2023 now goes to the President’s desk to be signed.


Update, December 8, 2022

On this date, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the bipartisan, bicameral text of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2023 by a vote of 350-80.


Update, December 6, 2022

On this date, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) and Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) jointly released the the text of an agreement reached on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023. The NDAA now goes to the Senate and House for a vote.

The released text included multiple Taiwan provisions, including the Taiwan Enhanced Resilience Act (see below selections from Subtitle A). A selection of the Taiwan provisions are reproduced below.

In summarizing these provisions, the HASC said:

Expresses congressional support for the U.S. defense relationship with Taiwan, requires additional measures to improve readiness related to Taiwan, and supports the use of joint military exercises with Taiwan, including the 2024 Rim of the Pacific exercise.

House Armed Services Committee (HASC)

Select Taiwan provisions

SEC.1263. Statement of Policy on Taiwan
(a)Statement of Policy. —Consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act (22 U.S.C. 3301 et. seq.), it shall be the policy of the United States to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist a fait accompli that would jeopardize the security of the people on Taiwan.
(b)Fait Accompli Defined. —In this section, the term “fait accompli” refers to the resort to force by the People’s Republic of China to invade and seize control of Taiwan before the United States can respond effectively.

SEC.1264. Sense of Congress on Joint Exercises with Taiwan
It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) joint military exercises with Taiwan are an important component of improving military readiness;

(2) the Commander of United States Indo-Pacific Command possesses the authority to carry outsuch joint military exercises, including those that—
(A) involve multiple warfare domains and exercise secure communications between the forces of the United States, Taiwan, and other foreign partners;
(B) incorporate the participation of multiple combatant and subordinate unified commands; and
(C) present complex military challenges, including the multi-domain capabilities of a capable adversary;

(3) the United States should seek to use existing authorities more effectively to improve the readiness of the military forces of the United States and Taiwan; and

(4) the naval forces of Taiwan should be invited to participate in the Rim of the Pacific exercise, as appropriate, conducted in 2024.

SEC.1265. Sense of Congress on Defense Alliances and Partnerships in the Indo-Pacific Region
It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should continue efforts that strengthen United States defense alliances and partnerships in the Indo-Pacific region so as to further the comparative advantage of the United States in strategic competition with the People’s Republic of China, including by—

(6) strengthening the United States partnership with Taiwan, consistent with the Three Communiques, the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96–8; 22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.), and the Six Assurances with the goal of improving Taiwan’s defensive military capabilities and promoting peaceful cross-strait relations;

Selection from Subtitle A—Taiwan Enhanced Resilience Act:

SEC.5502. Modernizing Taiwan’s Security Capabilities to Deter and, if Necessary, Defeat Aggression by the People’s Republic of China.
(a) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.—In this section, the term ‘‘appropriate congressional committees’’ means—
(1) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
(2) the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
(3) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
(4) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives;
(5) the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and
(6) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

(b) Taiwan Security Programs.—The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall use the authorities under this section to strengthen the United States-Taiwan defense relationship, and to support the acceleration of the modernization of Taiwan’s defense capabilities, consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96–8).

(c) Purpose.—In addition to the purposes otherwise authorized for Foreign Military Financing programs under the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), a purpose of the Foreign Military Financing Program should be to provide assistance, including equipment, training, and other support, to build the civilian and defensive military capabilities of Taiwan—
(1) to accelerate the modernization of capabilities that will enable Taiwan to delay, degrade, anddeny attempts by People’s Liberation Army forces—(A) to conduct coercive or grey zone activities; (B) to blockade Taiwan; or (C) to secure a lodgment on any islands administered by Taiwan and expand or otherwise use such lodgment to seize control of a population center or other key territory in Taiwan; and
(2) to prevent the People’s Republic of China from decapitating, seizing control of, or otherwise neutralizing or rendering ineffective Taiwan’s civilian and defense leadership.

(d) Regional Contingency Stockpile.—Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated pursuant to sub section (h), not more than $100,000,000 may be used during each of the fiscal years 2023 through 2032 to maintain a stockpile (if established pursuant to section 5503(b)), in accordance with section 514 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321h).

(e) Availability of Funds.—
(1) Annual Spending Plan.—Not later than March 1, 2023, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit a plan to the appropriate congressional committees describing how amounts authorized to be appropriated pursuant to subsection (h), if made available, would be used to achieve the purpose described in subsection (c).
(2) Certification.— (A) In General.—Amounts authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year pursuant to subsection (h) are authorized to be made avail- able after the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, certifies not less than annually to the appropriate commit- tees of Congress that Taiwan has increased its defense spending relative to Taiwan’s defense spending in its prior fiscal year, which includes support for an asymmetric strategy, excepting accounts in Taiwan’s defense budget related to personnel expenditures, (other than military training and education and any funding related to the All-Out Defense Mobilization Agency). (B) Waiver.—The Secretary of State may waive the certification requirement under sub-paragraph (A) if the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that for any given year— (i) Taiwan is unable to increase its defense spending relative to its defense spending in its prior fiscal year due to severe hardship; and (ii) making available the amounts authorized under subparagraph (A) is in the national interests of the United States.
(3) Remaining Funds. —Amounts authorized to be appropriated for a fiscal year pursuant to subsection (h) that are not obligated and expended during such fiscal year shall be added to the amount that may be used for Foreign Military Financing to Taiwan in the subsequent fiscal year.

(f) Annual Report on Advancing the Defense of Taiwan.
(1) Initial Report. —Concurrently with the first certification required under subsection (e)(2), the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense shall jointly submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees that describes steps taken to enhance the United States-Taiwan defense relation- ship and Taiwan’s modernization of its defense capabilities.
(2) Matters To Be Included. —Each report required under paragraph (1) shall include—
(A) an assessment of the commitment of Taiwan to implement a military strategy that will deter and, if necessary, defeat military aggression by the People’s Republic of China, including the steps that Taiwan has taken and the steps that Taiwan has not taken towards such implementation;
(B) an assessment of the efforts of Taiwan to acquire and employ within its forces counter- intervention capabilities, including— (i) long-range precision fires; (ii) integrated air and missile defense systems; (iii) anti-ship cruise missiles; (iv) land-attack cruise missiles; (v) coastal defense; (vi) anti-armor; (vii) undersea warfare, including manned and unmanned systems; (viii) survivable swarming maritime assets; (ix) manned and unmanned aerial systems; (x) mining and countermining capabilities; (xi) intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities; (xii) command and control systems; (xiii) defensive cybersecurity capabilities; and (xiv) any other defense capabilities that the United States determines, including jointly with Taiwan, are crucial to the defense of Taiwan, consistent with the joint consultative mechanism with Taiwan created pursuant to section 5506;
(C) an evaluation of the balance between conventional and counter intervention capabilities in the defense force of Taiwan as of the date on which the report is submitted;
(D) an assessment of steps taken by Tai- wan to enhance the overall readiness of its defense forces, including— (i) the extent to which Taiwan is requiring and providing regular and relevant training to such forces; (ii) the extent to which such training is realistic to the security environment that Taiwan faces; and (iii) the sufficiency of the financial and budgetary resources Taiwan is putting toward readiness of such forces;
(E) an assessment of steps taken by Taiwan to ensure that the Taiwan’s reserve forces and All-Out Defense Mobilization Agency can recruit, train, equip, and mobilize its forces; (iii) the efforts made by Taiwan to
address such shortages;
(F) an evaluation of— (i) the severity of manpower shortages in the military of Taiwan, including in the reserve forces; (ii) the impact of such shortages in the event of a conflict scenario; and (iii) the efforts made by Taiwan to address such shortages;
(G) an assessment of the efforts made by Taiwan to boost its civilian defenses, including any informational campaigns to raise awareness among the population of Taiwan of the risks Taiwan faces;
(H) an assessment of the efforts made by Taiwan to secure its critical infrastructure, including in transportation, telecommunications networks, satellite communications, and energy;
(I) an assessment of the efforts made by Taiwan to enhance its cybersecurity, including the security and survivability of official civilian and military networks;
(J) an assessment of the efforts made by Taiwan to improve the image and prestige of its defense forces among the population of Taiwan;
(K) an assessment of any significant gaps in any of the matters described in subparagraphs (A) through (J) with respect to which the United States assesses that additional action is needed;
(L) a description of cooperative efforts be-tween the United States and Taiwan on the matters described in subparagraphs (A)
through (K); and
(M) a description of any challenge in Taiwan to— (i) implement the matters described in subparagraphs (A) through (J); or (ii) United States support or engage ment with regard to such matters.
(3) Subsequent Reports.—Concurrently with subsequent certifications required under subsection (e)(2), the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense shall jointly submit updates to the initial re- port required under paragraph (1) that provides a description of changes and developments that occurred in the prior year.
(4) Form.—The reports required under paragraphs (1) and (3) shall be submitted in an unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex.
(5) Sharing of Summary.—The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense shall jointly share any unclassified portions of the reports, pursuant to paragraph (4), with Taiwan, as appropriate.

SEC.5503. Increase in Annual Regional Contingency Stockpile Additions and Support ForTaiwan.
(a) In General.—Section 514(b)(2)(A) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321h(b)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘$200,000,000’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘$500,000,000 for any of the fiscal years 2023, 2024, or 2025.’’.

(b) Establishment.—Subject to section 514 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321h), the President may establish a regional contingency stockpile for Taiwan that consists of munitions and other appropriate defense articles.

(c) Inclusion of Taiwan Among Other Allies Eligible for Defense Articles.—Chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2311 et seq.) is amended—
(1) in section 514(c)(2) (22 U.S.C. 2321h(c)(2)), by inserting ‘‘Taiwan,’’ after ‘‘Thailand,’’;
(2) in section 516(c)(2) (22 U.S.C. 2321j(c)(2)), by inserting ‘‘to Taiwan,’’ after ‘‘major non-NATO allies on such southern and southeastern flank,’’

(d) Annual Briefing.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for 7 years, the President shall provide a briefing to the appropriate committees of Congress regarding the status of a regional contingency stockpile established under sub-section (b).

SEC.5504. International Military Education and Training Cooperation with Taiwan
(a) In General.—The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense shall establish or expand a comprehensive training program with Taiwan designed to—
(1) enhance interoperability and capabilities for joint operations between the United States and Taiwan;
(2) enhance rapport and deepen partnership between the militaries of the United States and Taiwan, and foster understanding of the United States among individuals in Taiwan;
(3) improve Taiwan’s defense capabilities; and (4) train future leaders of Taiwan, promote professional military education, civilian control of the military, and protection of human rights.

(b) Elements.—The training program required by subsection (a) should prioritize relevant and realistic training, including as necessary joint United States-Taiwan contingency tabletop exercises, war games, full-scale military exercises, and an enduring rotational United States military presence that assists Taiwan in maintaining force readiness and utilizing United States defense articles and services transferred from the United States to Taiwan.

(c) Authorization of Participation of Taiwan in the International Military Education and Training Program.—The Secretary of State is authorized to provide training and education to relevant entities in Taiwan through the International Military Education and Training program authorized under chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 234 et seq).

SEC.5505. Additional Authorities to Support Taiwan.
(a) Drawdown Authority.—Section 506(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2318(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following paragraph: “(3) In addition to amounts already specified in this section, the President may direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training, of an aggregate value of not to exceed $1,000,000,000 per fiscal year, to be provided to Taiwan.”

b) Emergency Authority.—Section 552(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2348a(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following: “In addition to the aggregate value of $25,000,000 authorized in paragraph (2) of the preceding sentence, the President may direct the drawdown of commodities and services from the inventory and resources of any agency of the United States Government for the purposes of providing necessary and immediate assistance to Taiwan of a value not to exceed $25,000,000 in any fiscal year”.

(c) Use of Special Defense Acquisition Fund.—The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall seek to utilize the Special Defense Acquisition Fund established under chapter 5 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2795 et seq.) to expedite the procurement and delivery of defense articles and defense services for the purpose of assisting and supporting the armed forces of Taiwan.

SEC.5506. Multi-Year Plan to Fulfill Defensive Requirements of Military Forces of Taiwan.
(a) Multi-Year Plan.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall engage for the purposes of establishing a joint consultative mechanism with appropriate officials of Taiwan to develop and implement a multi-year plan to provide for the acquisition of appropriate defensive capabilities by Taiwan and to engage with Taiwan in a series of combined training, exercises, and planning activities consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96–8; 22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.).

(b) Elements.—The plan required by subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) An identification of the defensive military capability gaps and capacity shortfalls of Taiwan that are required to— (A) allow Taiwan to respond effectively to (B) advance a strategy of denial, reduce the threat of conflict, thwart an invasion, and mitigate other risks to the United States and Taiwan.
(2) An assessment of the relative priority as aggression by the People’s Liberation Army or other actors from the People’s Republic of China; and signed by appropriate departments and agencies of Taiwan to include its military to address such capability gaps and capacity shortfalls.
(3) An explanation of the annual resources committed by Taiwan to address such capability gaps and capacity shortfalls.
(4) A description and justification of the relative importance of overcoming each identified capability gap and capacity shortfall for deterring, delaying, or defeating military aggression by the People’s Republic of China;
(5) An assessment of— (A) the capability gaps and capacity short-falls that could be addressed in a sufficient and timely manner by Taiwan; and (B) the capability gaps and capacity short-falls that are unlikely to be addressed in a sufficient and timely manner solely by Taiwan.
(6) An assessment of the capability gaps and capacity shortfalls described in paragraph (5)(B) that could be addressed in a sufficient and timely manner by— (A) the Foreign Military Financing, Foreign Military Sales, and Direct Commercial Sales programs of the Department of State; (B) Department of Defense security assistance authorized by chapter 16 of title 10, United States Code; (C) Department of State training and education programs authorized by chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.); (D) section 506 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2318); (E) the provision of excess defense articles pursuant to the requirements of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.); or (F) any other authority available to the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of State.
(7) A description of United States or Taiwan engagement with other countries that could assist in addressing in a sufficient and timely manner the capability gaps and capacity shortfalls identified pursuant to paragraph (1).
(8) An identification of opportunities to build interoperability, combined readiness, joint planning capability, and shared situational awareness between the United States, Taiwan, and other foreign partners and allies, as appropriate, through combined training, exercises, and planning events, including—(A) table-top exercises and wargames that allow operational commands to improve joint and combined planning for contingencies involving a well-equipped adversary in a counter-intervention campaign; (B) joint and combined exercises that test the feasibility of counter-intervention strategies, develop interoperability across services, and develop the lethality and survivability of combined forces against a well-equipped adversary; (C) logistics exercises that test the feasibility of expeditionary logistics in an extended campaign with a well-equipped adversary; (D) service-to-service exercise programs that build functional mission skills for addressing challenges posed by a well-equipped adversary in a counter-intervention campaign; and (E) any other combined training, exercises, or planning with Taiwan’s military forces that the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State consider relevant.
(9) An identification of options for the United States to use, to the maximum extent practicable, existing authorities or programs to expedite military assistance to Taiwan in the event of a crisis or conflict, including— (A) a list of defense articles of the United States that may be transferred to Taiwan during a crisis or conflict; (B) a list of authorities that may be used to provide expedited military assistance to Tai- wan during a crisis or conflict; (C) an assessment of methods that could be used to deliver such assistance to Taiwan during a crisis or conflict, including— (i) the feasibility of employing such methods in different scenarios; and (ii) recommendations for improving the ability of the Armed Forces to deliver such assistance to Taiwan; and (D) an assessment of any challenges in providing such assistance to Taiwan in the event of a crisis or conflict and recommendations for addressing such challenges.

(c) Recurrence.—The joint consultative mecha- nism required in subsection (a) shall convene on a recur- ring basis and not less than annually.

SEC.5507. Fast-Tracking Sales to Taiwan Under Foreign Military Sales Program.
(a) Pre-Clearance Of Certain Foreign Military Sales Items.
(1) In General.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, and in conjunction with coordinating entities such as the National Disclosure Policy Committee, the Arms Transfer and Technology Release Senior Steering Group, and other appropriate entities, shall compile a list of available and emerging military platforms, technologies, and equipment that are pre-cleared and prioritized for sale and release to Taiwan through the Foreign Military Sales program.
(2) Rules Of Construction.— (A) Selection Of Items.—The list compiled pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not be construed as limiting the type, timing, or quantity of items that may be requested by, or sold to, Taiwan under the Foreign Military Sales program. (B) Notifications Required.—Nothing in this Act may be construed to supersede congressional notification requirements under the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et. seq.).

(b) Prioritized Processing of Foreign Military Sales Requests From Taiwan.—
(1) Requirement.—The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense shall prioritize and expedite the processing of requests from Taiwan under the Foreign Military Sales program, and may not delay the processing of requests for bundling purposes.
(2) Duration.—The requirement under paragraph (1) shall continue until the Secretary of State determines and certifies to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives that the threat to Taiwan has significantly abated.

(c) Interagency Policy.—The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense shall jointly review and update interagency policies and implementation guidance related to Foreign Military Sales requests from Taiwan, including incorporating the preclearance provisions of this section.

SEC. 5508. Arms Exports Delivery Solutions for Taiwan and United States Allies in The Indo-Pacific.
(a) Appropriate Committees Of Congress Defined.—In this section, the term ‘‘appropriate committees of Congress’’ means—
(1) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.

(b) Report Required.—Not later than March 1, 2023, and annually thereafter for a period of 5 years, the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, shall transmit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report with respect to the transfer of all defense articles or defense services that have yet to be completed pursuant to the authorities provided by—
(1) section 3, 21, or 36 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2753, 2761, or 2776); or
(2) section 516(c)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j(c)(2)).

(c) Elements.—The report required by subsection (b) shall include the following elements:
(1) A list of all approved transfers of defense articles and services authorized by Congress pursuant to sections 25 and 36 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2765, 2776) with a total value of $25,000,000 or more, to Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, Thailand, or New Zealand, that have not been fully delivered by the start of the fiscal year in which the report is being submitted.
(2) The estimated start and end dates of delivery for each approved and incomplete transfer listed pursuant to paragraph (1), including additional details and dates for any transfers that involve multiple tranches of deliveries.
(3) With respect to each approved and incomplete transfer listed pursuant to paragraph (1), a detailed description of— (A) any changes in the delivery dates of defense articles or services relative to the dates anticipated at the time of congressional approval of the transfer, including specific reasons for any delays related to the United States Government, defense suppliers, or a foreign partner; (B) the feasibility and advisability of pro- viding the partner subject to such delayed deliv- ery with an interim capability or solution, including drawing from United States stocks, and the mechanisms under consideration for doing so as well as any challenges to implementing such a capability or solution; (C) authorities, appropriations, or waiver requests that Congress could provide to improve delivery timelines or authorize the provision of interim capabilities or solutions identified pursuant to subparagraph (B); and (D) a description of which countries are ahead of Taiwan for delivery of each item listed pursuant to paragraph (1).
(4) A description of ongoing interagency efforts to support attainment of operational capability of the corresponding defense articles and services once delivered, including advance training with United States or armed forces of partner countries on the systems to be received. The description of any such training shall also include an identification of the training implementer.
(5) If a transfer listed pursuant to paragraph (1) has been terminated prior to the date of the submission of the report for any reason— (A) the case information for such transfer, including the date of congressional notification, delivery date of the Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA), final signature of the LOA, and information pertaining to delays in delivering LOAs for signature; (B) a description of the reasons for which the transfer is no longer in effect; and (C) the impact this termination will have on the intended end-user and the consequent implications for regional security, including the impact on deterrence of military action by countries hostile to the United States, the military balance in the Taiwan Strait, and other factors.
(6) A separate description of the actions the United States is taking to expedite and prioritize deliveries of defense articles and services to Taiwan, including— (A) a description of what actions the Department of State and the Department of Defense have taken or are planning to take to prioritize Taiwan’s Foreign Military Sales cases; (B) current procedures or mechanisms for determining that a Foreign Military Sales case for Taiwan should be prioritized above a sale to another country of the same or similar item; and (C) whether the United States intends to divert defense articles from United States stocks to provide an interim capability or solution with respect to any delayed deliveries to Taiwan and the plan, if applicable, to replenish any such diverted stocks.
(7) A description of other actions already undertaken by or currently under consideration by the Department of State and the Department of Defense to improve delivery timelines for the transfers listed pursuant to paragraph (1).

(d) Form.—The report required by subsection (b) shall be submitted in unclassified form but may include a classified annex.

SEC.5513. Strategy to Respond to Influence and Information Operations Targeting Taiwan.
(a) In General.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter for the following 5 years, the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall develop and implement a strategy to respond to—
(1) covert, coercive, and corrupting activities carried out to advance the Chinese Communist Party’s ‘‘United Front’’ work related to Taiwan, including activities directed, coordinated, or otherwise sup- ported by the United Front Work Department or its subordinate or affiliated entities; and
(2) information and disinformation campaigns, cyber attacks, and nontraditional propaganda measures supported by the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party that are directed toward persons or entities in Taiwan.

(b) Elements.—The strategy required under sub- section (a) shall include descriptions of—
(1) the proposed response to propaganda and disinformation campaigns by the People’s Republic of China and cyber-intrusions targeting Taiwan, including—(A) assistance in building the capacity of Taiwan’s public and private-sector entities to document and expose propaganda and disinformation supported by the Government of the People’s Republic of China, the Chinese Communist Party, or affiliated entities; (B) assistance to enhance Taiwan’s ability to develop a holistic strategy to respond to sharp power operations, including election interference; and (C) media training for Taiwan officials and other Taiwan entities targeted by disinformation campaigns;
(2) the proposed response to political influence operations that includes an assessment of the extent of influence exerted by the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party in Taiwan on local political parties, financial institutions, media organizations, and other entities;
(3) support for exchanges and other technical assistance to strengthen the Taiwan legal system’s ability to respond to sharp power operations; and
(4) programs carried out by the Global Engagement Center to expose misinformation and disinformation in the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda.

SEC.5525. Sense Of Congress on Expanding United States Economic Relations with Taiwan.
It is the sense of the Congress that—
(1) expanding United States economic relations with Taiwan has benefitted the people of both the United States and Taiwan, as Taiwan is now the United States 10th largest goods trading partner, 13th largest export market, 13th largest source of imports, and a key destination for United States agricultural exports;
(2) further integration would benefit both peoples and is in the strategic and diplomatic interests of the United States; and
(3) the United States should explore opportunities to expand economic agreements between Taiwan and the United States, through dialogue, and by developing the legal templates required to support potential future agreements.


Update, July 18, 2022

On this date, the Senate Armed Services Committee filed the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 in the U.S. Senate as S.4543. The NDAA was filed by Committee Chairman Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) and Ranking Member Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK).

The filed text included 3 Taiwan provisions:

SEC.1244. Defense of Taiwan
(a) Definitions – In this section:
(1) Deny – The term “deny” means to use combined joint operations to delay, degrade, and ultimately defeat an attempt by the People’s Republic of China to execute a fait accompli against Taiwan, resulting in—
(A) the termination of hostilities or at least the attempted fait accompli; or
(B) the neutralization of the ability of the People’s Republic of China to execute a fait accompli against Taiwan.
(2) Fait accompli – The term “fait accompli” refers to the strategy of the People’s Republic of China for invading and seizing control of Taiwan before the United States Armed Forces can respond effectively, while simultaneously deterring an effective combined joint response by the United States Armed Forcesby convincing the United States that mounting such a response would be prohibitively difficult or costly.

(b) Statement of Policy – Consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8; 22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.), it shall be the policy of the United States to maintain the ability of the United States Armed Forces to deny a fait accompli against Taiwan in order to deter the People’s Republic of China from using military force to unilaterally change the status quo with Taiwan.

SEC. 1245. Multi-Year Plan to Fulfill Defensive Requirements of Military Forces of Taiwan and Modification of Annual Report on Taiwan Asymmetric Capabilities and Intelligence Support
(a) Multi-year Plan – Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the American Institute in Taiwan, shall seek to engage with appropriate officials of Taiwan to develop and implement a multi-year plan to provide for the acquisition of appropriate defensive capabilities by Taiwan and to engage with Taiwan in a series of combined trainings, exercises, and planning activities, consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8; 22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.).

(b) Elements – The plan required by subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) An identification of the defensive capability gaps and capacity shortfalls of Taiwan.

(2) An assessment of the relative priority assigned by appropriate officials of Taiwan to address such capability gaps and capacity shortfalls.

(3) An explanation of the annual resources committed by Taiwan to address such capability gaps and capacity shortfalls.

(4) An assessment of–
(A) the defensive capability gaps and capacity shortfalls that could be addressed in a sufficient and timely manner by unilateral efforts of Taiwan; and
(B) the defensive capability gaps and capacity shortfalls that are unlikely to be addressed in a sufficient and timely manner solely through unilateral efforts.

(5) An assessment of the capability gaps and capacity shortfalls described in paragraph (4)(B) that could be addressed in a sufficient and timely manner by—
(A) Department of Defense security assistance authorized by chapter 16 of title 10, United States Code;
(B) the Foreign Military Financing and Foreign Military Sales programs of the Department of State;
(C) the provision of excess defense articles pursuant to the requirements of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.);
(D) section 614(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; or
(E) any other authority available to the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of State.

(6) An identification of opportunities to build interoperability, combined readiness, joint planning capability, and share situational awareness among the United States, Taiwan, and other foreign partners and allies, as appropriate, through combined trainings, exercises, and planning activities, including— 
(A) table-top exercises and wargames that allow operational commands to improve joint and combined war planning for contingencies involving a well-equipped adversary in a counter-intervention campaign;
(B) joint and combined exercises that test the feasibility of counter-intervention strategies, develop interoperability across services, and develop the lethality and survivability of combined forces against a well-equipped adversary;
(C) logistics exercises that test the feasibility of expeditionary logistics in an extended campaign with a well-equipped adversary;
(D) service-to-service exercise programs that build functional mission skills for addressing challenges posed by a well-equipped adversary in a counter-intervention campaign; and
(E) any other combined training, exercise, or planning activity with the military forces of Taiwan that the Secretary of Defense considers relevant.

SEC. 1251. Sense of the Senate on Supporting Prioritization of the People’s Republic of China, the Indo-Pacific Region, and Taiwan.
It is the sense of the Senate that the Senate— 
(1) supports the designations by the Department of Defense, as reflected in the 2022 National Defense Strategy and statements by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and other senior Department officials, of— 
(A) the People’s Republic of China as the Department’s pacing challenge;
(B) the Indo-Pacific as the Department’s priority theater; and
(C) a Taiwan contingency as the Department’s pacing scenario;

(2) underscores the importance of the Department continuing to prioritize the deterrence of aggression by the People’s Republic of China, particularly in the form of an invasion of Taiwan by the People’s Republic of China, as the Government of the People’s Republic of China expands and modernizes the People’s Liberation Army; and

(3) strongly urges the Department to manage force allocations across theaters to ensure, consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8; 22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.), that the United States Armed Forces maintain the ability to deny a fait accompli against Taiwan by the People’s Republic of China in order to deter the People’s Republic of China from using force to unilaterally change the status quo with Taiwan.


Update, July 14, 2022

On this date, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (H.R. 7900) by a Yea/Nay Vote of 329-101.

The text of the legislation included 3 Taiwan provisions:

SEC. 1303. Sense of Congress on Taiwan Defense Relations
It is the sense of Congress that— 
1) the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8; 22 U.S.C. et seq.) and the Six Assurances provided by the United States to Taiwan in July 1982 are the foundation for United States-Taiwan relations;

(2) as set forth in the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States 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, and that any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including boycotts and embargoes, is of grave concern to the United States;

(3) the increasingly coercive and aggressive behavior of the People’s Republic of China toward Taiwan is contrary to the expectation of the peaceful resolution of the future of Taiwan;

(4) as set forth in the Taiwan Relations Act, the capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan should be maintained;

(5) the United States should continue to support the development of capable, ready, and modern defense forces necessary for Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability, including by— 
(A) supporting acquisition by Taiwan of defense articles and services through foreign military sales, direct commercial sales, and industrial cooperation, with an emphasis on capabilities that support the asymmetric defense strategy of Taiwan, including anti-ship, coastal defense, anti-armor, air defense, undersea warfare, advanced command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and resilient command and control capabilities;
(B) ensuring timely review of and response to requests of Taiwan for defense articles and services;
(C) conducting practical training and military exercises with Taiwan that enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self- defense capability, as described in the Taiwan Relations Act;
(D) exchanges between defense officials and officers of the United States and Taiwan at the strategic, policy, and functional levels, consistent with the Taiwan Travel Act (Public Law 115-135; 132 Stat. 341), especially for the purposes of— (i) enhancing cooperation on defense planning; (ii) improving the interoperability of the military forces of the United States and Taiwan; and (iii) improving the reserve force of Taiwan;
(E) identifying improvements in Taiwan’s ability to use asymmetric military capabilities to enhance its defensive capabilities, as described in the Taiwan Relations Act; and
(F) expanding cooperation in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief; and

(6) the United States should be committed to the defense of a free and open society in the face of aggressive efforts by the Government of the People’s Republic of China to curtail or influence the free exercise of rights and democratic franchise.

SEC. 1312. Sense of Congress on Inviting Taiwan to the Rim of the Pacific Exercise
It is the sense of Congress that the naval forces of Taiwan should be invited to participate in the Rim of the Pacific exercise conducted in 2024.

SEC. 1313. Joint Exercises with Taiwan
(a) Sense of Congress
It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) joint military exercises with Taiwan are an important component of improving military readiness and joint operability of both countries;
(2) the Commander of United States Indo-Pacific Command, and other commands in the United States Indo-Pacific Command area of responsibility, already possess the legal authority to carry out such exercises; and
(3) the United States should better use existing authorities to improve the readiness and joint operability of United States and Taiwanese forces.

(b) Authority Recognized
The Commander of United States Indo-Pacific Command is authorized to carry out military exercises with Taiwan that—
(1) include multiple warfare domains and make extensive use of military common operations network used by United States, allied, and Taiwanese forces;
(2) to the maximum extent practical, incorporate the cooperation of 2 or more combatant and subordinate unified commands; and (3) present a complex military problem and include a force presentation of a strategic competitor.


Update, June 16, 2022

On this date, the Senate Armed Services Committee completed its markup draft of the NDAA 2023. In a vote of 23-3, the Committee voted to advance the bill to the Senate Floor for consideration.

The executive summary of the draft bill included Taiwan as an important priority:

Strengthening U.S. Posture in the Indo-Pacific Region
– Requires engagement with Taiwanese officials to develop and implement a multiyear plan to provide for the acquisition of appropriate defensive capabilities by Taiwan and to engage with Taiwan in a series of combined trainings, exercises, and planning activities.
– States that it shall be the policy of the United States to maintain the ability of the United States Armed Forces to deny a fait accompli against Taiwan in order to deter the People’s Republic of China from using military force to unilaterally change the status quo with Taiwan.


Update, May 27, 2022

On this date, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2023 was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives as H.R. 7900. It was then referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.

For the 2022 version of this post, see Taiwan in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 2022

Categories
Press Releases U.S. Government

USTBC Comments on the Proposed FMS of Aircraft Spare Parts to Taiwan

Press Release:
The US-Taiwan Business Council Comments on the Proposed Foreign Military Sales of Aircraft Spare Parts to Taiwan

(Arlington, Virginia, December 7, 2022)

The US-Taiwan Business Council today welcomed the announcement of two possible Foreign Military Sales (FMS) to Taiwan, supplying aircraft standard and nonstandard spare parts and related equipment at an estimated total cost of US$428 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) delivered the required certifications notifying Congress of the proposed Taiwan arms sales on December 6, 2022.

The published Congressional Notifications (transmittal numbers 22-55 and 22-56) are for the expansion of the Cooperative Logistics Supply Support Arrangement for stock replenishment supply of aircraft standard and non-standard spare parts and related equipment. These two notifications include consumables, accessories, and repair and replacement support for the F-16, C-130, Indigenous Defense Fighter (IDF), and all other Taiwan aircraft and systems or subsystems of U.S. origin, as well as other related elements of logistics and program support.

Council President Rupert Hammond-Chambers commented on today’s sale, “We welcome the news that the U.S. government continues to support the sustainment of Taiwan’s air power. A modern, well-equipped air force is required to handle an all-phases approach to Taiwan’s national defense. That includes the parts and sustainability required to maintain operational rates commensurate with the threat from China’s People’s Liberation Army Air Force.

The PLAAF’s grey zone activities represent a daily challenge to Taiwan’s sovereignty and national integrity. The upgrade program for Taiwan’s legacy F-16s is proceeding well, and in 2023 we can expect to see the first of Taiwan’s new F-16s start to arrive on the island. By 2026, Taiwan will have the largest and most modern fleet of F-16s in the Asia-Pacific – a capability well worth the investment and support. This too is true for Taiwan’s fleet of C-130s required for logistical support. Taiwan’s budget priorities should continue to ensure that its legacy equipment is well maintained, including through the procurement of parts.

Hammond-Chambers added, “USTBC has been consistent in noting that the Biden Administration is focused on munitions and sustainment, and these congressional notifications are part of those types of programs. As we move into 2023, we can expect more arms sales in these two areas.

Source: See the DSCA website at https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales

Additional Data:

For more details on Taiwan arms sales, please visit our dedicated defense website at www.ustaiwandefense.com. The post “Taiwan Arms Sales Notified to Congress 1990-2022” contains charts showing a summary of arms sales data by year, along with a link to the raw data compiled by the Council from DSCA and other sources.

Categories
News U.S. Government

2022 – Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China

The U.S. Department of Defense has released its annual report to Congress on China’s military power. This post contains selected Taiwan-related language in the 2022 report.

The Taiwan language in the previous year’s report (2021) is available here: https://www.ustaiwandefense.com/2021-military-and-security-developments-involving-the-peoples-republic-of-china/

Selected Taiwan Language

Eastern Theater Command

The Eastern Theater Command has responsibility for the East China Sea and likely executes operational control over military matters related to Taiwan and Japan, including contingencies in and around the Taiwan Strait and the Senkaku Islands. PLA units located within the Eastern Theater Command include 71st, 72nd, and 73rd Armies; the Eastern Theater Navy and its naval aviation division and two marine brigades; two Air Force divisions, two operational PLAAF bases, and one PLARF base. The Eastern Theater Command also likely commands all China Coast Guard (CCG) and maritime militia ships while they are conducting operations related to the ongoing dispute with Japan over the Senkaku Islands. During a contingency, the Eastern Theater Command likely also exercises command over some Strategic Support Force (SSF) units in theater and receives strategic intelligence support from the SSF to improve battlefield awareness and facilitate joint operations within the theater.

In 2021, the Eastern Theater Command focused on training and exercises to improve joint operations and combat readiness with long-distance maneuvers and mobilization, aerial combat, live-fire training, and the use of modified civilian ferries to augment transportation.

Developments in the Security Situation in the Taiwan Strait

Throughout 2021, island-seizure exercises became more frequent and realistic. The PLA conducted more than 20 naval exercises with an island-capture element, greatly exceeding the 13 observed in 2020. Many of these exercises focused on combat realism and featured night missions, training in adverse weather conditions, and simultaneous multi-domain operations.The PLA is preparing for a contingency to unify Taiwan with the PRC by force if perceived as necessary by Beijing, while simultaneously deterring, delaying, or denying any intervention by a third-party, such as the United States and/or other like-minded partners, on Taiwan’s behalf. As part of a comprehensive campaign to pressure Taiwan and the Tsai administration, and signal its displeasure at deepening Washington-Taipei ties, China has persistently conducted military operations near Taiwan and military training for a Taiwan contingency. Throughout 2021, the PLA increased provocative actions in and around the Taiwan Strait, to include repeated flights into Taiwan’s self-declared Air Defense Identification Zone and numerous island seizure exercises.

East China Sea

The PRC claims sovereignty over the Japanese-administered Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea (ECS), which Taiwan also claims. Beijing continues to uphold the importance of the four-point consensus signed in 2014, which states Japan and the PRC will acknowledge divergent positions over the ECS but will prevent escalation through dialogue, consultation, and crisis management mechanisms. The United States does not take a position on sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands but recognizes Japan’s administration of the islands and continues to reaffirm that the islands fall within the scope of Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Treaty. In addition, the United States opposes any unilateral actions that seek to undermine Japan’s administration of the islands.

The PRC uses maritime law enforcement vessels and aircraft to patrol near the islands, not only to demonstrate its sovereignty claims, but also to improve readiness and responsiveness to potential contingencies. In 2021, the PRC continued to conduct regular patrols into the contiguous zone territorial seas of the Senkaku Islands and stepped up efforts to challenge Japan’s control over the islands by increasing the duration and assertiveness of its patrols. In one instance, China Coast Guard (CCG) ships entered Japanese-claimed waters for more than 100 consecutive days. Japan’s government protested in January 2021, calling on China to ensure that new PRC legislation allowing its coast guard to use weapons in its waters complies with international law. In August 2021, seven CCG vessels—including four equipped with deck guns—sailed into disputed waters around the Japan-administered Senkaku islands in the East China Sea. According to the Japanese coast guard, the PRC vessels attempted to approach Japanese fishing vessels, but were prevented from doing so by Japan Coast Guard Vessels. Increased PRC assertiveness caused Japanese Defense Minister Nobuo Kishi to express “extremely serious concerns” in December 2021 and led to the Japanese and PRC defense ministries to begin operating a new hotline between the two countries to manage the risk of escalation.

Southern Theater Command

The Southern Theater Command covers mainland and maritime Southeast Asia, including the South China Sea (SCS). This geographic area implies that the Southern Theater Command is responsible for securing the SCS, supporting the Eastern Theater Command in any operation against Taiwan, and assuring the security of sea lines of communication (SLOCs) vital to China’s global ambitions. PLA units located within the Southern Theater Command include 74th and 75th Group Armies, the Southern Theater Navy, three marine brigades, two PLA Air Force bases, and two PLA Rocket Force bases. The Southern Theater Command is responsible for responding to U.S. freedom of navigation operations in the SCS and can assume command as needed over all CCG and PAFMM vessels conducting operations within the PRC’s claimed “nine-dash line.”

The PRC’s Strategy & Capabilities Development in the Taiwan Strait

Tensions between the PRC and Taiwan heightened in 2021, as the PRC intensified political and military pressure aimed at Taiwan. The PRC continues its suspension of formal communication with Taiwan, which it did in 2016, and remains adamant that Taiwan must accept Beijing’s view of the “1992 Consensus” to restart formal engagement. China’s leaders have directly equated the “1992 Consensus” to Beijing’s “One China principle” which was reaffirmed by General Secretary Xi Jinping in a January 2019 address to “compatriots” in Taiwan.

In October 2021, Taiwan President Tsai Ing-Wen called for a building of consensus around four commitments: 1) to a free and democratic constitutional system; 2) that Taiwan and China should not be subordinate to each other; 3) to resist annexation or encroachment upon the island’s sovereignty, and 4) that Taiwan’s future be decided in accordance with the will of its people. Xi replied in a 2021 New Year’s Eve speech, stating the complete unification of “the motherland” was an aspiration shared by people on both sides of the Strait − referring to Taiwan, which Xi described as “sacred” territory. This speech came a week after Beijing’s Taiwan Affairs Office warned that China would take “drastic measures” if Taiwan makes moves towards formal independence.

The PRC appears willing to defer the use of military force as long as it considers that unification with Taiwan could be negotiated over the long-term and the costs of conflict outweigh the benefits. The PRC argues that the credible threat of force is essential to maintaining the conditions for political progress on its terms and preventing Taiwan from making moves toward independence. In January 2019, General Secretary Xi Jinping publicly reiterated the PRC’s long-standing refusal to renounce the use of force to resolve the Taiwan issue and its position on peaceful unification under the model of “one country, two systems.” In his July 2021 speech, Xi put more emphasis on opposing Taiwan independence than on pressing unification during his tenure. In addition, Xi omitted China’s offer of “one country, two systems” including the “protection” of Taiwan’s social system, way of life, private property, religious beliefs, and “lawful rights and interests,” provided the PRC’s “sovereignty, security, and development interests,” are ensured. However, the PRC’s 2022 Taiwan White Paper published by the Taiwan Affairs Office restated the PRC’s preference for peaceful reunification under the “one country, two systems” framework, while maintaining a refusal to renounce the use of force to compel unification, if needed.

Based on changing public sentiment in Taiwan from polling data over recent years, PRC leaders may perceive a closing window of opportunity to subjugate Taiwan under Beijing’s “one country, two systems” framework. The PRC in 2021 continued an aggressive pressure campaign against Taiwan and the Tsai administration to curtail Washington-Taipei ties and deter “Taiwan independence.” The PRC conducting persistent military operations near Taiwan—and training for a Taiwan contingency—likely signals a greater urgency for the PLA to improve its planning and capabilities should PRC leaders look to a military option to achieve their objectives.

The circumstances under which the PRC has historically indicated it would consider the use force have evolved over time. These circumstances have included:
– Formal declaration of Taiwan independence;
– Undefined moves toward Taiwan independence;
– Internal unrest in Taiwan;
– Taiwan’s acquisition of nuclear weapons;
– Indefinite delays in the resumption of cross-Strait dialogue on unification;
– Foreign military intervention in Taiwan’s internal affairs.

Article 8 of the PRC’s March 2005 Anti-Secession Law states that the PRC may use “non-peaceful means” if “secessionist forces … cause the fact of Taiwan’s secession from China,” if “major incidents entailing Taiwan’s secession” occur, or if “possibilities for peaceful reunification” are exhausted. The PRC’s use of such non- specific conditions increases their policy flexibility through deliberate strategic ambiguity.

PRC Military Courses of Action Against Taiwan

The PRC continues to signal its willingness to use military force against Taiwan. The PLA has a range of options to coerce Taipei based on its increasing capabilities in multiple domains. The PRC could pursue a measured approach by signaling its readiness to use force or conduct punitive actions against Taiwan. The PLA could also conduct a more comprehensive campaign designed to force Taiwan to capitulate to unification, or attempt to compel Taiwan’s leadership to the negotiation table under Beijing’s terms. Notably, the PRC would seek to deter potential U.S. intervention in any Taiwan contingency campaign— capabilities relevant to deterring or countering potential U.S. intervention were among those that the PRC highlighted during its October 2019 military parade celebrating its 70th anniversary. Failing that, the PRC would attempt to delay and defeat intervention in a limited war of short duration. In the event of a protracted conflict, the PLA might choose to escalate cyberspace, space, or nuclear activities in an attempt to end the conflict, or it might choose to fight to a stalemate and pursue a political settlement. The PLA could offer the following military options against Taiwan, listed below individually or in combination, with varying degrees of feasibilities and risk associated.

Air and Maritime Blockade. PLA writings describe a Joint Blockade Campaign in which the PRC would employ blockades of maritime and air traffic, including a cut-off of Taiwan’s vital imports, to force Taiwan’s capitulation. Large-scale missile strikes and possible seizures of Taiwan’s offshore islands would accompany a Joint Blockade Campaign in an attempt to compel Taiwan’s surrender, while at the same time, posturing air and naval forces to conduct weeks or months of blockade operations if necessary. The PRC likely will complement its air and maritime blockades with concurrent electronic warfare (EW), network attacks, and information operations (IO) to further isolate Taiwan’s authorities and populace and to control the international narrative of the conflict.

Limited Force or Coercive Options. The PRC could use a variety of disruptive, punitive, or lethal military actions in a limited campaign against Taiwan, probably in conjunction with overt and clandestine economic and political activities supported by a variety of information operations to shape perceptions or undercut the effectiveness or legitimacy of the Taiwan authorities. Such a campaign could include computer network or limited kinetic attacks against Taiwan’s political, military, and economic infrastructure to induce fear in Taiwan and degrade the Taiwan population’s confidence in their leaders. Similarly, PLA special operations forces (SOF) could infiltrate Taiwan and conduct attacks against infrastructure or leadership targets.

Air and Missile Campaign. The PRC could use precision missile and air strikes against key government and military targets, including air bases, radar sites, missiles, space assets, and communications facilities to degrade Taiwan’s defenses, neutralize Taiwan’s leadership, or undermine the public’s resolve to resist.

Invasion of Taiwan. PRC writings describe different operational concepts for an amphibious invasion of Taiwan. The most prominent of these, the Joint Island Landing Campaign, envisions a complex operation relying on coordinated, interlocking campaigns for EW, logistics, air, and naval support. The objectives are to break through or circumvent shore defenses, establish a beachhead, build up combat power along Taiwan’s western coastline, and seize key targets or the entire island. The PRC continues to build and exercise capabilities that would likely contribute to a full- scale invasion. In 2021, the PLA conducted joint amphibious assault exercises near Taiwan and completed construction of its third LHA. In addition to this capability, the PLA likely will augment their capabilities with civilian “roll on/roll off” ships, under the legal basis of the 2016 National Defense Transportation Law. The PLA experimented with launching amphibious assault vehicles from these civilian ships in July 2020 and summer 2021, allowing them to flow amphibious forces directly to the beach rather than disembarking at port facilities.

Large-scale amphibious invasion is one of the most complicated and difficult military operations, requiring air and maritime superiority, the rapid buildup and sustainment of supplies onshore, and uninterrupted support. An attempt to invade Taiwan would likely strain PRC’s armed forces and invite international intervention. Combined with inevitable force attrition, complexity of urban warfare, and potential insurgency, these factors make an amphibious invasion of Taiwan a significant political and military risk for Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party, even assuming a successful landing and breakout.

The PLA is capable of various amphibious operations short of a full-scale invasion of Taiwan. With few overt military preparations beyond routine training, the PRC could launch an invasion of small Taiwan-occupied islands in the South China Sea such as Pratas or Itu Aba. A PLA invasion of a medium-sized, better-defended island such as Matsu or Kinmen is within the PLA’s capabilities. Such an invasion would demonstrate military capability, political resolve, and achieve tangible territorial gain while simultaneously showing some measure of restraint. This kind of operation involves significant, and possibly prohibitive, political risk because it could galvanize pro-independence sentiment on Taiwan and generate powerful international opposition.

The PLA’s Current Posture for a Taiwan Conflict

PLA Army (PLAA). The PLAA continues to enhance its readiness to prevent Taiwan independence and execute an invasion. Significant reorganizations and amphibious assault training in recent years likely indicate that the Taiwan contingency is a high priority for the Army. Major PLAA contributions to a Taiwan invasion scenario likely include extensive amphibious, army aviation, and air assault operations.

The PLAA fields six amphibious combined arms brigades—four in the Eastern Theater Command (nearest Taiwan) and two in the Southern Theater Command. PLAA units continued amphibious assault training as a single service and with joint service counterparts in 2021. Training events refined the tactics of rapid loading, long-distance transport and beach assault under complicated sea situations, and logistic support capabilities. Press reports also claimed extensive use of sea, air, and ground unscrewed systems in support of the amphibious assault operation. PLAA amphibious brigades reportedly conduct realistic, large-scale amphibious operations that are almost certainly aimed at supporting a Taiwan invasion scenario.

Amphibious trainings were frequent in 2021—in one 3-month period the PLA held more than 120 maritime trainings. They also tested new platforms that would play a key role in an amphibious seizure. In 2021, the PLA debuted the YUSHEN class amphibious assault ship (Type 075) Hainan LHA, designed to improve forces’ operational capabilities and vessel maneuver. Additional YUSHEN class hulls are currently under construction. It appears that the PLA is also planning to build a new class of amphibious assault ship—the Type 076. The new Type 076 reportedly will be equipped with electromagnetic catapults, which would enhance its ability to support fixed-wing aircraft and make it somewhat more like an aircraft carrier. 2021 also saw the PLA’s most advanced amphibious armored equipment, the Type 05 amphibious assault vehicle (AAV), used in large numbers for the first time. These AAVs represent an upgrade in armor, survivability, and speed from the last-generation Type 63A, and provide the PLA with a more capable amphibious assault platform.

PLA Navy (PLAN). The PLAN is improving its anti-air, anti-surface, and anti-submarine warfare capabilities, further developing an at-sea nuclear deterrence, and introducing new multi-mission platforms capable of conducting diverse missions during peace and war. New attack submarines and modern surface combatants with anti-air capabilities and fourth- generation naval aircraft are designed to achieve maritime superiority within the First Island Chain to deter and counter any potential third-party intervention in a Taiwan conflict.

The PRC’s amphibious fleet has in recent years focused on acquiring a modest number of ocean-going amphibious transport docks (LPDs) and amphibious assault ships (LHAs) ships. There is no indication the PRC is significantly expanding its tank landing ships (LSTs) and medium sized landing craft at this time. Although the PLAN has not invested in the large number of landing ships and medium landing craft that outsiders believe the PLA would need for a large-scale assault on Taiwan, it is possible the PLA assesses it has sufficient amphibious capacity and has mitigated shortfalls through investment in other operational capabilities— such as civilian lift vessels and rotary-wing assets— to address this gap. The PLA may also have confidence in the PRC’s shipbuilding industry’s massive capacity to produce the necessary ship-to-shore connectors relatively quickly.

PLA Air Force (PLAAF). The PLAAF has maintained a ready force posture for a variety of capabilities necessary in a Taiwan contingency. It has acquired a large number of advanced aircraft capable of conducting operations against Taiwan without requiring refueling, providing it with a significant capability to conduct air and ground-attack operations. A number of long-range air defense systems provide a strong layer of defense against attacks on key military installations or population centers on China’s mainland. The PRC’s development of support aircraft provides the PLAAF with improved ISR capability to support PLA operations. Additionally, the PLAAF has improved refueling capabilities, expanding its ability to operate further from China and increasing its ability to threaten third party intervention.

PLA Rocket Force (PLARF). The PLARF is prepared to conduct missile attacks against high-value targets, including Taiwan’s C2 facilities, air bases, and radar sites, to degrade Taiwan’s defenses, neutralize Taiwan’s leadership, or break the public’s will to fight. 2021 saw an acceleration of the positioning of conventional missiles. PLARF nuclear units will likely be postured to conduct deterrence operations.

Strategic Support Force (SSF). PLA doctrinal writings emphasize the importance of space and cyberspace domains in joint operations. The PRC’s 2019 Defense White Paper stated that its armed forces are accelerating the build-up of its cyberspace capabilities, specifically its cyber defenses and its ability to detect and counter network intrusions. PLA writings suggest that the SSF would be responsible for EW and cyberspace operations during a Taiwan contingency, as one of the missions of the force is to seize and maintain information dominance. The SSF 311 Base would be responsible for political and psychological warfare, such as disseminating propaganda against Taiwan to influence public opinion and promote the PRC’s interests. The SSF would also play a strategic information and communications support role, centralizing technical intelligence collection and management and providing strategic intelligence support to theater commands involved in a Taiwan contingency.

Joint Logistic Support Force (JLSF). The JLSF’s primary goal is to provide joint logistics support to the PLA’s strategic and campaign-level operations, such as a Taiwan contingency, by conducting C2 of joint logistics, delivering materiel, and overseeing various support mechanisms.

Taiwan’s Ability to Deter Force

Taiwan has positioned itself as “a beacon of democracy” to garner international support and expand regional security ties. Taiwan is taking steps to compensate for the growing disparity with the PLA, including building its war reserve stocks, growing its defense-industrial base, improving joint operations and crisis response capabilities, and strengthening its officer and noncommissioned officer corps. Taiwan’s Quadrennial Defense Review 2021 reflects adjustments to the military’s strategy for defending the island, placing emphasis on protecting its littorals and near-shore coastal areas in a multi-layered defense-in-depth. The modified strategy stresses enhanced asymmetric and joint capabilities, as well as suggesting greater reliance on Taiwan’s Air Force and Navy through multi-domain deterrence measures. However, these improvements only partially address Taiwan’s defense challenges.

Taiwan’s armed forces are authorized to fill approximately 215,000 billets, including 188,000 active duty billets. As of 2021, the Ministry of National Defense accomplished the goal to fill 90 percent of the active duty billets (169,000) with volunteers. As Taiwan transitioned to an all-volunteer force, the cost savings from manpower reductions provided some margin to improve individual pay and benefits, housing, and incentive pay; however, these savings have been insufficient to cover the full increase in manpower-related costs needed to attract and retain personnel under the new system. Taiwan also faces considerable equipment and readiness challenges. Reservists and civil defense volunteers support the active duty forces. Taiwan’s reserves number approximately 2.3 million, roughly 750,000 of which participate in refresher training. In 2021, Taiwan passed legislation to establish an organization within its national security structure to improve whole of society mobilization to support defense.

Taiwan continues to increase its defense budget in order to support defense acquisitions and bolster its forces against PRC pressure. In 2020, the Tsai administration announced defense spending to be the highest level since 1990. Taiwan announced a further 10 percent increase from the previous year, bringing the 2021 defense budget to NT$453 billion ($15.4 billion), and representing more than 2% of Taiwan’s GDP. Meanwhile, China’s official defense budget continues to grow and is about 17 times larger than Taiwan’s defense budget, with much of it focused on developing the capability to unify Taiwan with the PRC by force. Recognizing the growing disparity between their respective defense expenditures, Taiwan has stated that it is working to develop new cost effective concepts and capabilities for asymmetric warfare. Some specific areas of emphasis include offensive and defensive information and electronic warfare, high-speed stealth vessels, shore-based mobile missiles, rapid mining and minesweeping, unmanned aerial systems, and critical infrastructure protection. Taiwan has also dedicated significant defense spending toward its domestic submarine program, upgrading its existing F-16 fighters, as well as producing four transport docks and four minelaying ships to supplement its navy.

Consistent with the TRA, the United States contributes to peace, security, and stability in the Taiwan Strait by providing defense articles and services to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. From fiscal year 2019 to 2021, the United States has notified approximately $17 billion in potential arms sales to Taiwan, including 66 F-16 Block 70 fighter jets, 108 M1A2T Abrams tanks, four MQ-9 Reaper surveillance drones, Patriot missile system components, 250 Stinger missiles, 18 Mk-48 Mod 6 heavyweight torpedoes, artillery rocket systems, Paladin howitzers, 100 Harpoon coastal defense cruise missile systems, and AGM-84 SLAM-ER missiles.

Key Takeaways

  • The Eastern Theater Command is oriented toward Taiwan and the East China Sea. The Eastern Theater Command likely would be in charge of executing a Taiwan invasion.
  • The PRC intensified diplomatic, political, and military pressure against Taiwan in 2021. Throughout 2021, the PLA increased provocative and destabilizing actions in and around the Taiwan Strait, to include repeated flights into Taiwan’s self-declared Air Defense Identification Zone and conducting island-seizure exercises.
  • The PRC continues to use maritime law enforcement vessels and aircraft to patrol near the Japan-administered Senkaku Islands.
  • In 2021, the PRC passed new legislation regarding the rules of engagement for their Coast Guard vessels, creating a legal justification for more aggressive patrols.
  • The Southern Theater Command is oriented toward the South China Sea, Southeast Asia border security, and territorial and maritime disputes.
  • The PRC’s Spratly outposts are capable of supporting military operations, include advanced weapon systems, and have supported non-combat aircraft; however, no large-scale presence of combat aircraft has been yet observed there.
  • In 2021, the PRC continued to deploy PLAN, CCG, and civilian vessels in response to Vietnamese and Malaysian drilling operations within the PRC’s claimed “nine- dash-line” and Philippines’ construction at Thitu Island.
  • Although the PRC publicly advocates for peaceful unification with Taiwan, the PRC has never renounced the use of military force; the circumstances under which the PRC has historically indicated it would consider using force remain ambiguous and have evolved over time.
  • The PRC could conduct a range of options for military campaigns against Taiwan, from an air and/or maritime blockade to a full-scale amphibious invasion to seize and occupy some of its offshore islands or all of Taiwan, with varying degrees of feasibility and risks associated.
  • The PRC’s multi-decade military modernization effort continues to widen the capability gap compared to Taiwan’s military.
  • To counter the PRC’s improving capabilities, Taiwan is developing new concepts and capabilities for asymmetric warfare.
Categories
U.S. Government

Taiwan in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 2022

Update, December 27, 2021

On this date, U.S. President Joe Biden signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2022. The NDAA became Public Law No: 117-81.


Update, December 15, 2021

On this date, the U.S. Senate agreed to the House amendments in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (S.1605) by a Yea/Nay Vote of 88 – 11.

The NDAA 2022 now goes to the President’s desk to be signed.


Update, December 7, 2021

On this date, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (S.1605) was passed in the House by a Yea/Nay Vote of 363 – 70.

This legislation is substantially based on two bills: (1) H.R. 4350, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, which passed the House on September 23 by a vote of 316-113; and (2) S. 2792, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, which was approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 21 by a vote of 23-3. 
(source)

The December 7 version of the bill included multiple Taiwan provisions:

SEC. 1246. Sense of Congress on Taiwan Defense Relations

It is the sense of Congress that–
(1) the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8; 22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.) and the Six Assurances provided by the United States to Taiwan in July 1982 are the foundation for United States-Taiwan relations;

(2) as set forth in the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States 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, and that any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including boycotts and embargoes, is of grave concern to the United States;

(3) the increasingly coercive and aggressive behavior of the People’s Republic of China towards Taiwan is contrary to the expectation of a peaceful resolution of the future of Taiwan;

(4) as set forth in the Taiwan Relations Act, the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan and the policy of the United States to make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantities as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self- defense capability should be maintained; and

(5) the United States should continue to support the development of capable, ready, and modern defense forces necessary for Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability, including by–
(A) supporting acquisition by Taiwan of defense articles and services through foreign military sales,
direct commercial sales, and industrial cooperation, with an emphasis on capabilities that support the asymmetric defense strategy of Taiwan;
(B) ensuring timely review of and response to requests by Taiwan for defense articles and services;
(C) conducting practical training and military exercises with Taiwan, including, as appropriate, inviting Taiwan to participate in the Rim of the Pacific exercise conducted in 2022, that enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability, as described in the Taiwan Relations Act;
(D) deepening interoperability with Taiwan in defensive capabilities, including maritime and air domain awareness and integrated air and missile defense systems;
(E) encouraging exchanges between defense officials and officers of the United States and Taiwan at the strategic, policy, and functional levels, consistent with the Taiwan Travel Act (Public Law 115-135; 132 Stat. 341), especially for the purposes of–
(i) enhancing cooperation on defense planning;
(ii) improving the interoperability of the military forces of the United States and Taiwan; and
(iii) improving the reserve force of Taiwan;
(F) identifying improvements in Taiwan’s ability to use asymmetric military capabilities to enhance its defensive capabilities, as described in the Taiwan Relations Act; and
(G) expanding cooperation in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

SEC. 1247. Statement of Policy on Taiwan

a) Statement of Policy — Consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act (22 U.S.C. 3301 et. seq.), it shall be the policy of the United States to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist a fait accompli that would jeopardize the security of the people on Taiwan.
(b) Definition — In this section, the term “fait accompli” refers to the resort to force by the People’s Republic of China to invade and seize control of Taiwan before the United States can respond effectively.

SEC. 1248. Annual Report on Taiwan Asymmetric Capabilities and Intelligence Support

(a) In General — The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the heads of other relevant Federal departments and agencies, shall each year through fiscal year 2027, consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8; 22 U.S.C. 3302(c)), perform an annual assessment of matters related to Taiwan, including intelligence matters, Taiwan’s asymmetric defensive capabilities, and how defensive shortcomings or vulnerabilities of Taiwan could be mitigated through cooperation, modernization, or integration. At a minimum, the assessment shall include the following:
(1) An intelligence assessment regarding–
(A) conventional military threats to Taiwan from China, including exercises intended to intimidate or coerce Taiwan; and
(B) irregular warfare activities, including influence operations, conducted by China to interfere in or undermine the peace and stability of the TaiwanStrait.
(2) The current defensive asymmetric capabilities of Taiwan and the ability of Taiwan to defend itself from external conventional and irregular military threats.
(3) The interoperability of current and future defensive asymmetric capabilities of Taiwan with the military capabilities of the United States and its allies and partners.
(4) The plans, tactics, techniques, and procedures underpinning the defensive asymmetric capabilities of Taiwan.
(5) A description of additional personnel, resources, and authorities in Taiwan or in the United States that may be required to meet any shortcomings in the development of Taiwan’s defensive capabilities identified pursuant to this section.
(6) The applicability of Department of Defense authorities for improving the defensive asymmetric capabilities of Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act.
(7) The feasibility and advisability of assisting Taiwan in the domestic production of defensive asymmetric capabilities, including through the transfer of intellectual property, co- development, or co-production arrangements.
(8) An assessment of ways in which the United States could enhance cooperation with on intelligence matters with Taiwan.
(9) A description of any non-Department of Defense efforts by the United States Government to build the capacity of Taiwan to disrupt external efforts that degrade its free and democratic society.
(10) A description of any significant efforts by the Defense Intelligence Enterprise and other elements of the intelligence community to coordinate technical and material support for Taiwan to identify, disrupt, and combat influence operations referred to in this subsection.
(11) Any other matter the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate.

(b) Plan — The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the heads of other relevant Federal departments and agencies, shall develop a
plan for assisting Taiwan in improving its defensive asymmetric capabilities and addressing vulnerabilities identified pursuant to subsection (a) that includes-
(1) recommendations for new Department of Defense authorities, or modifications to existing Department authorities, necessary to improve the defensive asymmetric capabilities of Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8; 22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.);
(2) an identification of opportunities for key leader and subject matter expert engagement between Department personnel and military and civilian counterparts in Taiwan; and
(3) an identification of challenges and opportunities for leveraging non-Department authorities, resources, and capabilities to improve the defensive asymmetric capabilities of Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act.

(c) Report — Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually through fiscal year 2027, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress-
(1) a report on the results of the assessment required by subsection (a); and
(2) the plan required by subsection (b).

(d) Form –The report required by subsection (c) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

(e) Definitions — In this section:
(1) The term “appropriate committees of Congress” means–
(A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
(2) The term “defensive asymmetric capabilities” means the capabilities necessary to defend Taiwan against conventional external threats, including coastal defense missiles, naval mines, anti-aircraft capabilities, cyber defenses, and special operations forces.

SEC. 1249. Feasibility Briefing on Cooperation Between the National Guard and Taiwan

(a) In General — Not later than February 15, 2022, the Secretary of Defense shall provide to the congressional defense committees a briefing on the feasibility and advisability of enhanced cooperation between the National Guard and Taiwan.

(b) Elements — The briefing required by subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) A description of the cooperation between the National Guard and Taiwan during the preceding calendar year, including mutual visits, exercises, training, and equipment opportunities.
(2) An evaluation of the feasibility of enhancing cooperation between the National Guard and Taiwan on a range of activities, including –
(A) disaster and emergency response;
(B) cyber defense and communications security;
(C) military medical cooperation;
(D) Mandarin-language education and cultural exchange; and
(E) programs for National Guard advisors to assist in training the reserve components of the military forces of Taiwan.
(3) Recommendations to enhance such cooperation and improve interoperability, including through familiarization visits, cooperative training and exercises, and co-deployments.
(4) Any other matter the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate


Update, September 23, 2021

On this date, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (H.R.4350) by a Yea/Nay Vote of 316-113.

The passed text included 3 additional Taiwan-related amendments:

Floor 53, Rule 628
Directs the Director of National Intelligence to submit to Congress a report on influence operations conducted by China to interfere in or undermine peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait and the Indo-Pacific Region and efforts by the U.S. to work with Taiwan to disrupt such operations.

Floor 59, Rule 616
Supports Taiwan’s investment in an asymmetric defense strategy by requiring a report with programmatic and policy options to support Taiwan’s defense budgeting and procurement process in a manner that facilitates sustained investment in capabilities aligned with Taiwan’s asymmetric defense strategy.

Floor 84, Rule 795
Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and Secretary of Commerce to submit a report that includes an assessment of establishing a preclearance facility in Taiwan.


Update, September 17, 2021

On this date, the House Committee on Armed Services filed a supplemental report on the NDAA. The text of the supplemental report mentioned Taiwan in regards to Chinese Mine Warfare and on PLA Civilian Strategic Mobility Capacity. It also included two additional Taiwan-related items:

TITLE XII–MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS

Items of Special Interest

Report on Anti-Ship Systems for Defense of Taiwan

The committee supports the strategic partnership between the United States and Taiwan, and notes the importance of anti-ship systems in defending the territorial integrity of the Government of Taiwan. The committee further notes the urgent need for ground-based anti-ship cruise missiles, ground-based cruise missiles, and anti-ship mines to defend United States and allied forces in the Indo-Pacific against growing threats and deter conflict in the region.

The committee strongly supports an effort to expand defense industrial cooperation with the Government of Taiwan. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a report by January 31, 2022, on what anti-ship systems and capabilities in the extant U.S. military hardware inventory might be used to enhance the defense of Taiwan, and plans on how these systems and capabilities could be incorporated into the current military of the Government of Taiwan to enhance their self-defense capabilities.

Report on Engaging Taiwan in Indo-Pacific Regional Dialogues or Forums

The committee recognizes the value of Taiwan-U.S. relations, and the importance Taiwan plays in the Indo-Pacific region. As such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2022, on the Department of Defense’s plan to meaningfully engage Taiwan in regional security dialogues or forums that shall include the following:

    (1) An assessment of list of security regional dialogues or forums that would fit for Taiwan’s participation.

    (2) A discussion of current and future plans to achieve engaging Taiwan in regional security dialogues or forums.

    (3) An evaluation of the feasibility of cooperating on a range of activities with the aforementioned security dialogues or forums, including: (a) humanitarian-assistance and disaster-relief; (b) supply chain security; (c) cyber security; (d) coast guard; and (e) any other matters the Secretary of Defense determines appropriate.


Update, September 10, 2021

On this date, the NDAA, as H.R.4350, was reported (amended) in the House by the House Committee on Armed Services.

The text included three provisions for enhancing the defense and security cooperation between the United States and Taiwan:

SEC. 1243. Report on Cooperation Between the National Guard and Taiwan

(a) Report – Not later than February 15, 2022, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to appropriate congressional committees a report on the feasibility and advisability of enhanced cooperation between the National Guard and Taiwan. Such report shall include the following:

(1) A description of the cooperation between the National Guard and Taiwan during the 10 preceding calendar years,
including mutual visits, exercises, training, and equipment opportunities.

(2) An evaluation of the feasibility and advisability of enhancing cooperation between the National Guard and Taiwan on a range of activities, including-
(A) disaster and emergency response;
(B) cyber defense and communications security;
(C) military medical cooperation;
(D) cultural exchange and education of members of the National Guard in Mandarin Chinese; and
(E) programs for National Guard advisors to assist in training the reserve components of the military forces of Taiwan.

(3) Recommendations to enhance such cooperation and improve interoperability, including through familiarization visits, cooperative training and exercises, and co-deployments.

(4) Any other matter the Secretary of Defense determines appropriate.

(b) Appropriate Congressional Committees.–In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means-
(1) the congressional defense committees;
(2) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives; and
(3) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.

SEC. 1247. Sense of Congress on Taiwan Defense Relations

It is the sense of Congress that
(1) the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8; 22 U.S.C.3301 et seq.) and the Six Assurances provided by the United States to Taiwan in July 1982 are the foundation for United States-Taiwan relations;

(2) as set forth in the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States 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, and that any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including boycotts and embargoes, is of grave concern to the United States;

(3) the increasingly coercive and aggressive behavior of the People’s Republic of China toward Taiwan is contrary to the expectation of the peaceful resolution of the future of Taiwan;

(4) as set forth in the Taiwan Relations Act, the capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan should be maintained;

(5) the United States should continue to support the development of capable, ready, and modern defense forces necessary for Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability, including by–
(A) supporting acquisition by Taiwan of defense articles and services through foreign military sales, direct commercial sales, and industrial cooperation, with an emphasis on capabilities that support the asymmetric defense strategy of Taiwan, including anti-ship, coastal defense, anti-armor, air defense, undersea warfare, advanced command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and resilient command and control capabilities;
(B) ensuring timely review of and response to requests of Taiwan for defense articles and services;
(C) conducting practical training and military exercises with Taiwan that enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self- defense capability, as described in the Taiwan Relations Act;
(D) exchanges between defense officials and officers of the United States and Taiwan at the strategic, policy, and functional levels, consistent with the Taiwan Travel Act (Public Law 115-135; 132 Stat. 341), especially for the purposes of–
(i) enhancing cooperation on defense planning;
(ii) improving the interoperability of the military forces of the United States and Taiwan; and
(iii) improving the reserve force of Taiwan;
(E) identifying improvements in Taiwan’s ability to use asymmetric military capabilities to enhance its defensive capabilities, as described in the Taiwan Relations Act; and
(F) expanding cooperation in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief; and

(6) the United States should be committed to the defense of a free and open society in the face of aggressive efforts by the Government of the People’s Republic of China to curtail or influence the free exercise of rights and democratic franchise.

SEC. 1248. Sense of Congress on Inviting Taiwan to the Rim of the Pacific Exercise.

It is the sense of Congress that the naval forces of Taiwan should be invited to participate in the Rim of the Pacific exercise conducted in 2022.


July 21, 2021

On this date, the NDAA 2022, as S. 2792, was approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee by a vote of 23-3. 

The text included three Taiwan provisions:

SEC. 1245. Assessment of and Plan for Improving the Defensive Asymmetric Capabilities of Taiwan

(a) Assessment – The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the heads of other relevant Federal departments and agencies, shall conduct an assessment of –
(1) the current defensive asymmetric capabilities of Taiwan and the ability of Taiwan to defend itself from external conventional military threats;
(2) the applicability of Department of Defense authorities for improving the defensive asymmetric capabilities of Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8; 22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.);
(3) the feasibility and advisability of assisting Taiwan in the domestic production of defensive asymmetric capabilities, including through the transfer of intellectual property, co-development, or co-production arrangements;
(4) the plans, tactics, techniques, and procedures underpinning the defensive asymmetric capabilities of Taiwan;
(5) the interoperability of current and future defensive asymmetric capabilities of Taiwan with the military capabilities of the United States and its allies and partners; and
(6) any other matter the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate.

(b) Plan – The Secretary of Defense shall develop a plan for assisting Taiwan in improving its defensive asymmetric capabilities that includes –
(1) recommendations for new Department of Defense authorities, or modifications to existing Department authorities, necessary to improve the defensive asymmetric capabilities of Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8; 22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.);
(2) an identification of opportunities for key leader and subject matter expert engagement between Department personnel and military and civilian counterparts in Taiwan; and
(3) an identification of challenges and opportunities for leveraging non-Department authorities, resources, and capabilities to improve the defensive asymmetric capabilities of Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8; 22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.).

(c) Report – Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress-(1) a report on the results of the assessment required by subsection (a); and
(2) the plan required by subsection (b).

(d) Definitions – In this section:
(1) Appropriate committees of congress – The term “appropriate committees of Congress” means –
(A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
(2) Defensive asymmetric capabilities.–The term “defensive asymmetric capabilities” means the capabilities necessary to defend Taiwan against conventional external threats, including coastal defense missiles, naval mines, anti-aircraft capabilities, cyber defenses, and special operations forces.

SEC. 1246. Annual Feasibility Briefing on Cooperation Between the National Guard and Taiwan

(a) Sense of Congress — It is the sense of Congress that the United States should —
(1) continue to support the development of capable, ready, and modern defense forces necessary for Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability by increasing exchanges between senior defense officials and general officers of the United States and Taiwan at the strategic, policy, and
functional levels, consistent with the Taiwan Travel Act (Public Law 115-135; 132 Stat. 341), especially for the purposes of –
(A) improving the interoperability of the military forces of the United States and Taiwan;
(B) improving the reserve forces of Taiwan; and
(C) expanding cooperation in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief;
(2) expand and strengthen Taiwan’s capability to conduct security activities, including traditional activities of the combatant commands, cooperation with the National Guard, and through multilateral activities; and
(3) using appropriate authorities and consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8; 22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.), seek to develop a partnership between the National Guard and Taiwan as a means of maintaining a sufficient self-defense capability.

(b) Briefing —
(1) In general — Not later than February 15, 2022, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of Defense shall provide to the congressional defense committees a briefing on the feasibility and advisability of enhanced cooperation between the National Guard and Taiwan.
(2) Elements — Each briefing required by paragraph (1) shall include the following:
(A) A description of the cooperation between the National Guard and Taiwan during the preceding calendar year, including mutual visits, exercises, training, and equipment opportunities.
(B) An evaluation of the feasibility of enhancing cooperation between the National Guard and Taiwan on a range of activities, including–
(i) disaster and emergency response;
(ii) cyber defense and communications security;
(iii) military medical cooperation;
(iv) Mandarin-language education and cultural exchange; and
(v) programs for National Guard advisors to assist in training the reserve components of the military forces of Taiwan.
(C) Recommendations to enhance such cooperation and improve interoperability, including through familiarization visits, cooperative training and exercises, and co-deployments.
(D) Any other matter the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate.

SEC. 1247. Defense of Taiwan

(a) Definitions — In this section:
(1) Deny — The term “deny” means to use combined joint operations to delay, degrade, and ultimately defeat an attempt by the People’s Republic of China to execute a fait accompli against Taiwan, resulting in–
(A) the termination of hostilities or at least the attempted fait accompli; or
(B) the neutralization of the ability of the People’s Republic of China to execute a fait accompli against Taiwan.
(2) Fait accompli — The term “fait accompli” refers to the strategy of the People’s Republic of China for invading and seizing control of Taiwan before the United States Armed Forces can respond effectively, while simultaneously deterring an effective combined joint response by the United States Armed Forces by convincing the United States that mounting such a response would be prohibitively difficult or costly.

(b) Statement of Policy — It shall be the policy of the United States to maintain the ability of the United States Armed Forces to deny a fait accompli against Taiwan in order to deter the People’s Republic of China from using military force to unilaterally change the status quo with Taiwan.


July 2, 2021

The NDAA 2022, as H.R.4350, was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on July 2, 2021.


Previous Posts

Taiwan in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 2021

Taiwan in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 2020

Taiwan in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 2019

Taiwan in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 2018

Taiwan Initiative in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 2017

Proposed Taiwan Initiatives in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 2016

Categories
News U.S. Government

2021 – Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China

The U.S. Department of Defense has released its annual report to Congress on the military power of China. This post contains selected Taiwan-related language in the 2021 report.

Taiwan language in the 2020 report: https://www.ustaiwandefense.com/2020-military-and-security-developments-involving-the-peoples-republic-of-china/

Selected Taiwan Language

Eastern Theater Command

The Eastern Theater Command has responsibility for the East China Sea and likely executes operational control over national defense matters related to Taiwan and Japan, including contingencies in and around the Taiwan Strait and the Senkaku Islands. In 2020, the Eastern Theater Command focused on a series of training and exercises to improve joint operations and combat readiness, organizing exercises and drills consisting of long-distance training and mobilization, aerial combat, and live-fire training. PLA units located within the Eastern Theater Command include three group armies, a naval fleet, a naval aviation division, two marine brigades, two Air Force divisions, two operational Air Force bases, and one Rocket Force base. The Eastern Theater Command also likely commands all China Coast Guard (CCG) and maritime militia ships while they are conducting Senkakus-related operations. During a contingency, the Eastern Theater Command likely also exercises command over some Strategic Support Force (SSF) units in theater and receives strategic intelligence support from the SSF to improve battlefield awareness and facilitate joint operations within the theater.

In August and September 2020, the Eastern Theater Command conducted a series of military exercises in the vicinity of Taiwan that featured large-scale naval and air maneuvers, amphibious operations, and multiple instances of PLA aircraft crossing the median line of the Taiwan Strait. An Eastern Theater Command spokesperson stated that these drills were meant to further test and improve multi-service joint operations capabilities, as well as to deter “Taiwan independence” forces and foreign actors from threatening the peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait region.

Developments in the Security Situation in the Taiwan Strait

Tensions between the PRC and Taiwan heightened in 2020, as the PRC intensified political and military pressure aimed at Taiwan. In January 2020, despite the PRC’s election interference, President Tsai Ing-wen won reelection for a second term. The PRC continues its suspension of formal communication with Taiwan, which it did in 2016, and remains steadfast that Taiwan must accept Beijing’s view of the “1992 Consensus” to restart formal engagement. China’s leaders have directly equated the “1992 Consensus” to Beijing’s “one China Principle” which was reaffirmed by General Secretary Xi in a January 2019 address to “compatriots” in Taiwan. President Tsai has continually pledged to maintain the status quo in cross-Strait relations and called for the PRC to respect Taiwan’s democracy and agree to negotiations without preconditions. In her May 2020 inauguration speech, Tsai reiterated that her China policy would be based on the Republic of China’s constitution and the law governing cross-Strait relations, with a willingness to engage in dialogue on the principles of “peace, parity, democracy, and dialogue” to the PRC’s displeasure.

The PRC also maintained its diplomatic pressure on Taiwan, thwarting Taiwan’s efforts to participate in international organizations such as the World Health Organization, International Civil Aviation Organization, and the International Criminal Policy Organization (INTERPOL). Despite the stalled consultations with the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continues to engage with Taiwan’s Kuomintang (KMT) party, and the PRC continues to hold lower-level cross-Strait exchanges such as the municipal Shanghai-Taipei Twin City Forum, held virtually in August 2020, due to the pandemic.

The PLA continues to prepare for contingencies in the Taiwan Strait to deter, and if necessary, compel Taiwan to abandon moves toward independence. The PLA also is likely preparing for a contingency to unify Taiwan with the PRC by force, while simultaneously deterring, delaying, or denying any third-party intervention, such as the United States and/or other like- minded partners, on Taiwan’s behalf. As part of a comprehensive campaign to pressure Taiwan and the Tsai administration, and signal its displeasure at warming Washington-Taipei ties, China has persistently conducted military operations near Taiwan and military training for a Taiwan contingency. Throughout 2020, China’s military increased provocative actions in and around the Taiwan Strait, to include repeated flights into Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone and conducting combat drills such as island seizure operations. In 2020, Beijing also publicly refuted the existence of the Taiwan Strait ‘median line,’ a decades-long tacit agreement between the two sides intended to reduce miscalculation and avoid sparking accidental crises.

East China Sea

The PRC claims sovereignty over the Japanese-administered Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, which Taiwan also claims. It also continues to uphold the importance of abiding by the four-point consensus signed in 2014, which states Japan and the PRC will acknowledge divergent positions over the East China Sea but will prevent escalation through dialogue, consultation, and crisis management mechanisms. The United States does not take a position on sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands but recognizes Japan’s administration of the islands and continues to reaffirm that the islands fall within the scope of Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Treaty. In addition, the United States opposes any unilateral actions that seek to undermine Japan’s administration of the islands.

The PRC uses maritime law enforcement ships and aircraft to patrol near the islands, not only as a visible representation of the PRC’s sovereignty claims, but also in an effort to improve readiness and respond quickly to potential contingencies. During 2020, the PRC continued to conduct regular patrols into the contiguous and territorial waters of the Senkaku Islands, and stepped up efforts to challenge Japan’s control over the islands by increasing the duration and assertiveness of its patrols. In July, two PRC coast guard vessels conducted a record-setting patrol within the 12nm territorial waters that lasted 39 hours and 23 minutes, following a similar patrol just two days prior. These two patrols represented the longest time PRC vessels have ever spent continuously operating inside the Senkakus’ territorial waters since 2012. By the end of the year, PRC vessels had been observed in the contiguous waters of the islands for 333 days, breaking 2019’s record of 282 days.

PRC coast guard vessels also acted more assertively during their patrols in 2020, shadowing Japanese fishing vessels operating within the Senkakus’ territorial waters and ordering them to leave on multiple occasions. Japan’s government protested in late November 2020 when PRC ships entered Japan’s contiguous zone for the 306th time this year, further straining the relations between the PRC and Japan in relation to the Senkakus and complicating plans to reschedule a planned visit to Japan by President Xi Jinping.

The PRC’s Strategy & Capabilities Development in the Taiwan Strait

The PRC appears willing to defer the use of military force as long as it considers that unification with Taiwan could be negotiated over the long-term and the costs of conflict outweigh the benefits. The PRC argues that the credible threat of force is essential to maintaining the conditions for political progress on its terms and preventing Taiwan from making moves toward independence. In January 2019, General Secretary Xi Jinping publicly reiterated the PRC’s long-standing refusal to renounce the use of force to resolve the Taiwan issue, and staked the PRC’s position for peaceful unification under the model of “one country, two systems.” Based on the 2019 speech, “once country, two systems” entails the “protection” of Taiwan’s social system, way of life, private property, religious beliefs, and “lawful rights and interests,” provided the PRC’s “sovereignty, security, and development interests,” are ensured. In 2020, senior PRC leaders and government spokespersons continued to call for cross-Strait discussions on the foundation of adhering to Beijing’s interpretation of the “1992 Consensus” and opposing Taiwan independence, and reiterated contents of Xi’s 2019 speech.

Based on changing public sentiment in Taiwan, according to recent polling data, PRC leaders may perceive a closing window of opportunity to subjugate Taiwan under the pretenses of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” framework. The PRC has increasingly resorted to an aggressive pressure campaign against Taiwan and the Tsai administration to curtail Washington-Taipei ties and deter “Taiwan independence.” The PRC conducting persistent military operations near Taiwan—and training for a Taiwan contingency—likely signals a greater urgency for the PLA to continue to develop and perfect its strategy and capabilities should PRC leaders look to a military option to achieve their objectives.

The circumstances under which the PRC has historically indicated it would consider the use force have evolved over time. These circumstances have included:
‒ Formal declaration of Taiwan independence;
‒ Undefined moves toward Taiwan independence;
‒ Internal unrest in Taiwan;
‒ Taiwan’s acquisition of nuclear weapons;
‒ Indefinite delays in the resumption of cross-Strait dialogue on unification; and
‒ Foreign military intervention in Taiwan’s internal affairs.

Article 8 of the PRC’s March 2005 Anti-Secession Law states that the PRC may use “non- peaceful means” if “secessionist forces … cause the fact of Taiwan’s secession from China,” if “major incidents entailing Taiwan’s secession” occur, or if “possibilities for peaceful reunification” are exhausted. The PRC’s use of such non-specific conditions increases their policy flexibility through deliberate strategic ambiguity.

PRC Courses of Action Against Taiwan

The PRC continues to signal its willingness to use military force against Taiwan. The PLA has a range of options to coerce Taipei based on its increasing capabilities in multiple domains. The PRC could pursue a measured approach by signaling its readiness to use force or conduct punitive actions against Taiwan. The PLA could also conduct a more comprehensive campaign designed to force Taiwan to capitulate to unification, or compel Taiwan’s leadership to the negotiation table under Beijing’s terms. Notably, the PRC would seek to deter potential U.S. intervention in any Taiwan contingency campaign – capabilities relevant to deterring or countering potential U.S. intervention were among those that the PRC highlighted during its October 2019 military parade celebrating its 70th anniversary. Failing that, the PRC would attempt to delay and defeat intervention in an asymmetric, limited war of short duration. In the event of a protracted conflict, the PLA might choose to escalate cyberspace, space, or nuclear activities in an attempt to end the conflict, or it might choose to fight to a stalemate and pursue a political settlement. The PLA could initiate the military options listed below individually or in combination.

Air and Maritime Blockade. PLA writings describe a Joint Blockade Campaign in which the PRC would employ kinetic blockades of maritime and air traffic, including a cut-off of Taiwan’s vital imports, to force Taiwan’s capitulation. Large-scale missile strikes and possible seizures of Taiwan’s offshore islands would accompany a Joint Blockade in an attempt to achieve a rapid Taiwan surrender, while at the same time, posturing air and naval forces to conduct weeks or months of blockade operations if necessary. The PRC will also likely complement its air and maritime blockade operations with concurrent electronic warfare (EW), network attacks, and information operations (IO) to further isolate Taiwan’s authorities and populace and to control the international narrative of the conflict.

Limited Force or Coercive Options. The PRC could use a variety of disruptive, punitive, or lethal military actions in a limited campaign against Taiwan, probably in conjunction with overt and clandestine economic and political activities supported by a variety of IO to shape perceptions or undercut the effectiveness or legitimacy of the Taiwan authorities. Such a campaign could include computer network or limited kinetic attacks against Taiwan’s political, military, and economic infrastructure to induce fear in Taiwan and degrade the Taiwan population’s confidence in their leaders. Similarly, PLA special operations forces (SOF) could infiltrate Taiwan and conduct attacks against infrastructure or leadership targets.

Air and Missile Campaign. The PRC could use missile attacks and precision air strikes against air defense systems, including air bases, radar sites, missiles, space assets, and communications facilities to degrade Taiwan’s defenses, neutralize Taiwan’s leadership, or break the Taiwan people’s resolve.

Invasion of Taiwan. Publicly available PRC writings describe different operational concepts for an amphibious invasion of Taiwan. The most prominent of these, the Joint Island Landing Campaign, envisions a complex operation relying on coordinated, interlocking campaigns for logistics, air, and naval support, and EW. The objective would be to break through or circumvent shore defenses, establish and build a beachhead, transport personnel and materiel to designated landing sites in the north or south of Taiwan’s western coastline, and launch attacks to seize and occupy key targets or the entire island. In 2020, the PLA conducted joint amphibious assault exercises near Taiwan. Furthermore, the PRC continues to build capabilities that would contribute to a full-scale invasion; in 2019, the PLA completed construction of its first helicopter dock amphibious assault ship (LHA).

Large-scale amphibious invasion is one of the most complicated and difficult military operations, requiring air and maritime superiority, the rapid buildup and sustainment of supplies onshore, and uninterrupted support. An attempt to invade Taiwan would likely strain PRC’s armed forces and invite international intervention. These stresses, combined with the PRCs combat force attrition and the complexity of urban warfare and counterinsurgency, even assuming a successful landing and breakout, make an amphibious invasion of Taiwan a significant political and military risk for Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party.

The PLA is capable of attempting various amphibious operations short of a full-scale invasion of Taiwan. With few overt military preparations beyond routine training, the PRC could launch an invasion of small Taiwan-occupied islands in the South China Sea such as Pratas or Itu Aba. A PLA invasion of a medium-sized, better-defended island such as Matsu or Jinmen is within the PLA’s capabilities. Such an invasion would demonstrate military capability, political resolve, and achieve tangible territorial gain while simultaneously showing some measure of restraint. However, this kind of operation involves significant, and possibly prohibitive, political risk because it could galvanize pro-independence sentiment on Taiwan and generate powerful international opposition.

The PLA’s Current Posture for a Taiwan Conflict

PLA Army (PLAA)
The PLAA continues to enhance its readiness to prevent Taiwan independence and execute an invasion. Significant reorganizations and cross-sea amphibious assault training in recent years likely indicate supporting a Taiwan operation is a high priority for the Army. Major PLAA contributions to a Taiwan invasion scenario likely include extensive amphibious, army aviation, and air assault operations.

The PLAA fields six amphibious combined arms brigades—four in the Eastern Theater Command (nearest Taiwan) and two in the Southern Theater Command. Despite COVID-19 mitigation efforts, extensive flooding in southern China, and conflict on the Indian border, PLAA units continued amphibious assault training as a single service and with joint service counterparts in 2020. Training events included nighttime loading, concealed landing, simulated sea crossing operations, and joint landing operations integrating PLAA aviation, Special Forces, EW, armor, and mechanized infantry. Press reports also claim extensive use of sea, air, and ground UAS in support of the amphibious assault operation. PLAA amphibious brigades reportedly conduct realistic, large-scale amphibious operations that are almost certainly aimed at supporting a Taiwan invasion scenario.

In addition to amphibious assault, PLAA aviation and air assault brigades will likely play a role in a large-scale amphibious assault. PLAA aviation and air assault brigades conducted significant training throughout 2020—some directly supporting a Taiwan scenario and others that improve skill sets necessary for a cross-sea invasion. Exercises included single-service operations and joint operations with the PLAN and PLAAF. In August 2020, PLAA helicopters left their land base, landed on PLAN ships, and then conducted an air assault mission. PLAA aviation units also completed “cross-sea [aerial] assault drills,” using UAVs to target opposing forces for air strikes in support of ground forces. PLAA aviation assets also conducted an exercise attacking air and maritime assets in an open-sea environment. Army aviation and air assault units extensively trained on scenarios in a maritime environment that support joint force operations similar to those necessary for a Taiwan invasion.

PLA Navy (PLAN)
The PLAN is improving its anti-air, anti-surface, and anti-submarine warfare capabilities, developing an at-sea nuclear deterrent, and introducing new multi- mission platforms capable of striking Taiwan’s naval forces in a cross-Strait conflict as well as conducting diverse missions in other contingency operations. New attack submarines and modern surface combatants with anti-air capabilities and fourth-generation naval aircraft entering the force are designed to achieve maritime superiority within the First Island Chain as well as to deter and counter any potential third-party intervention in a Taiwan conflict.

The PRC’s amphibious ship fleet, however, has in recent years focused on acquiring a modest number of ocean-going amphibious platform docks (LPDs) and flat deck landing helicopter assault (LHAs) ships, indicating a near term focus on regional and eventually global expeditionary missions rather than the large number of landing ship transports and medium landing craft that would be necessary for a large-scale direct beach assault. There is also no indication the PRC is significantly expanding its force of tank landing ships (LSTs) and medium sized landing craft at this time—suggesting a traditional large-scale direct beach— assault operation requiring extensive lift remains aspirational. Although the PLAN has not invested in the large number of landing ships and medium landing craft that outsiders believe the PLA would need for a large-scale assault on Taiwan, it is possible the PLA assess it has sufficient amphibious capacity and mitigated shortfalls through investments in other operational modalities able to bring forces onto Taiwan such as the PLA’s rapidly expanding fleet of rotary-wing assets. The PLA may also have confidence in the PRC’s shipbuilding industry’s massive capacity to produce the necessary ship-to-shore connectors relatively quickly.

PLA Air Force (PLAAF)
The PLAAF has maintained a force posture that provides a variety of capabilities for a Taiwan contingency. It has acquired a large number of advanced aircraft capable of conducting operations against Taiwan without requiring refueling, providing it with a significant capability to conduct air and ground-attack operations. A number of long- range air defense systems provide a strong layer of defense against attacks on key military installations or population centers on China’s mainland. In addition, the PRC’s development of support aircraft provides the PLAAF with improved ISR capability to support PLA operations in a contingency.

PLA Rocket Force (PLARF)
The PLARF is prepared to conduct missile attacks against high-value targets, including Taiwan’s C2 facilities, air bases, and radar sites, in an attempt to degrade Taiwan’s defenses, neutralize Taiwan’s leadership, or break the public’s will to fight. PLARF nuclear units will likely be postured to conduct deterrence operations and in heightened readiness in preparation for rapid nuclear counterstrikes if called on.

Strategic Support Force (SSF)
PLA doctrinal writings emphasize the importance of space and cyberspace domains in joint operations. The PRC’s 2019 defense white paper states that its armed forces are accelerating the build-up of its cyberspace capabilities, specifically its cyber defenses and its ability to detect and counter network intrusions. PLA writings suggest that the SSF would be responsible for the use of EW and cyber operations during a Taiwan contingency, as one of the missions of the force is to seize and maintain battlefield information control in contemporary informatized warfare. The SSF 311 Base would also be responsible for political and psychological warfare, such as disseminating propaganda against Taiwan to influence public opinion and promote the PRC’s interests. The SSF would also play a strategic information and communications support role, centralizing technical intelligence collection and management and providing strategic intelligence support to theater commands involved in a Taiwan contingency.

Joint Logistic Support Force (JLSF)
The JLSF’s primary goal is to provide joint logistics support to the PLA’s strategic and
campaign-level operations, such as a Taiwan contingency, by conducting C2 of joint logistics, delivering materiel, and overseeing various support mechanisms.

Taiwan’s Defense Capabilities

Taiwan is taking important steps to compensate for the growing disparities it has compared to the PLA, including building its war reserve stocks, growing its defense-industrial base, improving joint operations and crisis response capabilities, and strengthening its officer and noncommissioned officer corps. However, these improvements only partially address Taiwan’s defense challenges. Taiwan’s 2021 Quadrennial Defense Review reaffirms recent adjustments to the military’s strategy for defending the island, placing emphasis on protecting its littorals and near-shore coastal areas in a multi-layered defense in depth. The modified strategy stresses enhanced asymmetric and joint capabilities, as well as suggesting greater reliance on Taiwan’s Air Force and Navy through multi-domain deterrence measures.

Taiwan’s armed forces are authorized to fill approximately 215,000 billets, including 188,000 active duty billets. Reservists and civil defense volunteers support the active duty forces. As of the end of 2020, the Ministry of National Defense accomplished its goal of filling 90 percent of the active duty billets, totaling approximately 169,000 personnel, with volunteers. Taiwan’s military modernization program envisions a continued decrease in Taiwan’s active duty force to approximately 175,000 personnel as part of a transition to an all-volunteer force. This transition has slowed due to severe difficulties recruiting volunteers. The cost savings from manpower reductions provides some margin to improve individual pay and benefits, housing, and incentive pay; however, these savings have been insufficient to cover the full increase in manpower-related costs needed to attract and retain personnel under the new system. The unanticipated magnitude of transition costs has led Taiwan to divert funds from foreign and indigenous defense acquisition programs, as well as near-term training and readiness. Taiwan also faces considerable equipment and readiness challenges.

Taiwan continues to increase its defense budget in order to support defense acquisition and reforms. In August 2019, Taiwan said it would increase the island’s defense budget by 5.2 percent to NT $358 billion ($11.6 billion). In August 2020, the Tsai administration announced an additional 10% increase to the defense budget, increasing overall defense spending to more than 2% of gross domestic product and the highest level since the 1990’s. Meanwhile, the PRC’s official defense budget continues to grow, with much of it focused on developing the military joint operations capability that could be used to unify Taiwan with the PRC by force. Recognizing the growing disparity between their respective defense expenditures, Taiwan has stated that it is working to develop new concepts and capabilities for asymmetric warfare. Some specific areas of emphasis include Electronic Warfare, cyber and information operations, fast attack maritime vessels, coastal defense missiles, rapid naval mining, unmanned aerial systems, and critical infrastructure protection.

The United States maintains its one-China policy, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), the three Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances. The United States is committed to deepening ties with Taiwan, which is a leading democracy and a critical economic and security partner. The United States will continue to support a peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues, consistent with the wishes and best interests of the people on Taiwan.

Consistent with the TRA, the United States contributes to peace, security, and stability in the Taiwan Strait by providing defense articles and services to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. In October 2019, Taiwan announced the purchase of F-16V fighter aircraft for $8 billion. In 2020, the frequency of arms sales to Taiwan increased with authorizations totaling more than $5 billion. Authorized weapons sales included advanced unmanned aerial systems, long range missiles and artillery, and the Harpoon Coastal Defense System. Since 2010, the United States has announced more than $23 billion in arms sales to Taiwan. In support of these efforts, the U.S. continues to maintain the capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people of Taiwan.

Key Take Aways

  • The Eastern Theater Command is oriented toward Taiwan and the East China Sea.
  • PRC diplomatic, political, and military pressure against Taiwan intensified in 2020.
  • Throughout 2020, the PLA increased provocative and destabilizing actions in and around the Taiwan Strait, to include repeated flights into Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone and conducting combat drills such as island seizure operations.
  • The PRC continues to use maritime law enforcement ships and aircraft to patrol near the Japan-administered Senkaku Islands. In 2020, the PRC stepped up efforts to challenge Japan’s control over the islands by increasing the duration and assertiveness of its patrols.
  • Although the PRC publicly advocates for peaceful unification with Taiwan, the PRC has never renounced the use of military force; the circumstances under which the PRC has historically indicated it would consider using force remain ambiguous and have evolved over time.
  • The PRC has a range of options for military campaigns against Taiwan, from an air and maritime blockade to a full-scale amphibious invasion to seize and occupy some or all of Taiwan or its offshore islands.
  • The PRC’s multi-decade military modernization effort continues to widen the capability gap between the PLA and Taiwan’s military.
  • To counter the PRC’s improving capabilities, Taiwan is developing new concepts and capabilities for asymmetric warfare.
Categories
U.S. Government

Taiwan in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 2021

Update, January 1, 2021

On this date, the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act 2021 became Public Law No: 116-283.

On this date, the NDAA 2021 passed in the Senate, overriding the veto by a Yea-Nay vote of 81-13 (the required 2/3 affirmation).

Update, December 28, 2020

On this date, the NDAA 2021 passed in the House, overriding the veto by a Yea-Nay vote of 322-87 (the required 2/3 affirmation).

Update, December 23, 2020

On this date, the Enrolled Bill was vetoed by the President. The bill is now passed to the House and Senate for a vote.

Update, December 11, 2020

On this date, the conference report was agreed to in the Senate by a Yea/Nay Vote of 84-13.

On this date, Congress also submitted the 2021 NDAA to the President for signature. The following Taiwan-related language was included in the enrolled version of the bill:

SEC. 1260. Statement of Policy and Sense of Congress on the Taiwan Relations Act

(a) STATEMENT OF POLICY.—It is the policy of the United States—
(1) that the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96–8; 22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.) and the Six Assurances provided by the United States to Taiwan in July 1982 are the foundation for United States-Taiwan relations;

(2) to fully pursue the deepening of the extensive, close, and friendly relations of the United States and Taiwan pursuant to the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96–8; 22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.), the intent of which is to facilitate greater cooperation and the broadening and deepening of United States-Taiwan relations;

(3) that the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96–8; 22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.) shall be implemented and executed, consistent with the Six Assurances, to address evolving political, security, and economic dynamics and circumstances;

(4) that, as set forth in the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96–8; 22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.), the United States 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, and that any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including boycotts and embargoes, is a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States;

(5) that the increasingly coercive and aggressive behavior of the People’s Republic of China towards Taiwan is contrary to the expectation of the peaceful resolution of the future of Taiwan; and

(6) as set forth in the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96–8; 22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.), to maintain the capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) the United States should continue to support the development of capable, ready, and modern defense forces necessary for Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability, including by—
(A) supporting acquisition by Taiwan of defense articles and services through foreign military sales, direct commercial sales, and industrial cooperation, with an emphasis on capabilities that support the asymmetric defense strategy of Taiwan, including anti-ship, coastal defense, anti-armor, air defense, undersea warfare, advanced command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and resilient command and control capabilities;
(B) ensuring timely review of and response to requests of Taiwan for defense articles and services;
(C) conducting practical training and military exercises with Taiwan that enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability;
(D) examining the potential for expanding professional military education and technical training opportunities in the United States for military personnel of Taiwan;
(E) increasing exchanges between senior defense officials and general officers of the United States and Taiwan at the strategic, policy, and functional levels, consistent with the Taiwan Travel Act (Public Law 115–135; 132 Stat. 341), especially for the purposes of—
(i) enhancing cooperation on defense planning;
(ii) improving the interoperability of the military forces of the United States and Taiwan; and
(iii) improving the reserve force of Taiwan; and
(F) expanding cooperation in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief;

(2) the Secretary of State should ensure that any policy guidance related to United States-Taiwan relations is fully consistent with the statement of policy set forth in subsection (a);

(3) the Secretary of Defense should ensure that policy guidance related to United States-Taiwan defense relations is fully consistent with the statement of policy set forth in subsection (a); and

(4) the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the heads of other Federal agencies and departments, as appropriate, should issue new guidance as required to carry out such policy.

SEC. 1260A. Annual Briefing on Taiwan Arms Sales

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State, or his or her designee, shall brief the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on the United States commitment to supporting Taiwan in maintaining a sufficient self defense capability, as required by the Taiwan Relations Act (22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.) and affirmed in the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act of 2018 (22 U.S.C. 3301 note).

(b) ELEMENTS.—Each briefing required by subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) A description of United States efforts to implement section 209(b) of the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act of 2018 (22 U.S.C. 3301 note) by conducting regular transfers to Taiwan of defense articles tailored to meet the existing and likely future threats from the People’s Republic of China, including any effort to support Taiwan in the development and integration into its military forces of asymmetric capabilities, as appropriate, including mobile, survivable, and cost-effective capabilities.

(2) A description of the role of such transfers of defense articles and services in supporting Taiwan in maintaining the capabilities, readiness levels, and resourcing necessary to fulfill and implement Taiwan’s Overall Defense Concept.

(3) A description of—
(A) United States efforts to conduct a regularized process for consideration of transfers of defense articles and services to Taiwan; and
(B) any barriers to conducting such a process.
(c) SUNSET.—This section shall cease to have effect on December 31, 2026.

SEC. 1260B. Report On United States-Taiwan Medical Security Partnership

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the feasibility of establishing a medical security partnership with the Ministry of Defense of Taiwan that shall include the following:

(1) The goals and objectives of developing a medical security partnership on issues related to pandemic preparedness and control.

(2) A discussion of current and future plans to cooperate on medical security activities.

(3) An evaluation of the feasibility of cooperating on a range of activities under the partnership, including—
(A) research and production of vaccines and medicines;
(B) joint conferences with scientists and experts;
(C) collaboration relating to and exchanges of medical supplies and equipment; and
(D) the use of hospital ships such as the United States Naval Ship Comfort and United States Naval Ship Mercy.

(4) Any other matters the Secretary of Defense determines appropriate.

SEC. 9724. Fairness for Taiwan Nationals Regarding Employment at International Financial Institutions

(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) Taiwan is responsible for remarkable achievements in economic and democratic development, with its per capita gross domestic product rising in purchasing power parity terms from $3,470 in 1980 to more than $55,000 in 2018;
(2) the experience of Taiwan in creating a vibrant and advanced economy under democratic governance and the rule of law can inform the work of the international financial institutions, including through the contributions and insights of Taiwan nationals; and
(3) Taiwan nationals who seek employment at the international financial institutions should not be held at a disadvantage in hiring because the economic success of Taiwan has rendered it ineligible for financial assistance from such institutions.

b) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive Director at each international financial institution to use the voice and vote of the United States to seek to ensure that Taiwan nationals are not discriminated against in any employment decision by the institution, including employment through consulting or part-time opportunities, on the basis of—
(1) whether they are citizens or nationals of, or holders of a passport issued by, a member country of, or a state or other jurisdiction that receives assistance from, the international financial institution; or
(2) any other consideration that, in the determination of the Secretary, unfairly disadvantages Taiwan nationals with respect to employment at the institution.

(c) WAIVER AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of the Treasury may waive subsection (b) for not more than 1 year at a time after reporting to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate that providing the waiver
(1) will substantially promote the objective of equitable treatment for Taiwan nationals at the international financial institutions; or
(2) is in the national interest of the United States, with a detailed explanation of the reasons therefor.

(d) PROGRESS REPORT.—The Chairman of the National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Policies shall submit to the committees specified in subsection (c) an annual report, in writing, that describes the progress made toward advancing the policy described in subsection (b), and a summary of employment trends with respect to Taiwan nationals at the international financial institutions.

(e) INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTION DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘international financial institutions’’ has the meaning given the term in section 1701(c)(2) of the International Financial Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(2)).

(f) SUNSET.—The preceding provisions of this section shall have no force or effect beginning on the earlier of—
(1) the date that is 7 years after the date of the enactment of this Act; or
(2) the date that the Secretary of the Treasury reports to the committees specified in subsection (c) that each international financial institution has adopted the policy described in subsection (b).