Facts on the arms sales

Q: Has the United States made any commitments to China regarding arms sales to Taiwan?

A: Yes. In the August 17 Communique issued by the two nations in 1982, the US Government states that "it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan, that its arms sales to Taiwan will not exceed, either in qualitative or in quantitative terms, the level of those supplied in recent years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the US and China, and that it intends to gradually reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution".

Q: Has the US adhered to the above commitments?

A: No. Over the past 40 years, the US has made more than 120 arms sales to Taiwan, with the total amount exceeding $70 billion by 2022, according to public statistics.

Q: How does the US justify its arms sales to Taiwan?

A: The US has claimed that it is committed to its longstanding One-China policy which is guided by the "Taiwan Relations Act", the three Sino-US joint communiques, and the "Six Assurances".

However, the "Taiwan Relations Act" which came into effect in 1979, states that the US will "make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability."

In 1982, the US presented Taiwan regional authorities with the "Six Assurances", which included: "The United States has not agreed to set a date for ending arms sales to Taiwan."

Q: Is the US justification valid?

A: It is not. The US arms sales to Taiwan, guided by the unilaterally imposed "Taiwan Relations Act" and "Six Assurances", seriously violate the one-China principle and the three Sino-US Joint Communiques, as well as the fundamental principles of international law regarding respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs.

The sales also seriously violate the principle of estoppel in international law. Essentially, they place US domestic law above its international obligations, which is illegal and invalid.

Sources: Chinese Foreign Ministry, US Congress, US Defense Security Cooperation Agency