Despite US remarks that have energized supporters of Taiwan “independence”, the US is in no position to abandon the one-China policy and has no real plan to do so. For the sake of the healthy development of Sino-US relations, the US should stop all its official contacts and exchanges with Taiwan, reducing its arms sales to Taiwan, and move toward a final resolution of this lingering sore spot.

If the DPP continues to create obstacles for cross-straits relations out of its selfish partisan interests, there is ample reason for us to feel concerned about the state of mainland-Taiwan relations in the next three years.

The inauguration of President Donald J. Trump on January 20, 2017 suggests that U.S. foreign policy is moving away from the Wilsonian liberal internationalism, which has guided American foreign policymaking since the end of World War II, toward the “America-first” Jacksonian populism.

Cross-Strait relations in 2017 are only a part of the changing Sino-US relationship and reorganization of the global order. It is in the interests of both the US and China, as well as the interests of Taiwan, to maintain the status quo, which must be recognized anew by Taipei and Washington.

A peace pact will yield numerous dividends for both sides and promote peace and stability in the Western Pacific, which is why politicians in Beijing and Taipei ought to listen to the people.

The Trump administration may exert unprecedented strategic pressures on China against the background of continuous implementation of the pivot to the Asia-Pacific. But that is unlikely to boost the US economy for many reasons, and the Republicans’ realist diplomatic philosophy and Trump’s businessman’s pragmatism make it possible for reversals in the next US government’s aggressive China policies.

Strategic surprise and a cultivated image of irrationality is a classical strategy in a game of brinkmanship. One side highlights its willingness to “dance too close” to the cliff’s edge and maximize risk, leading its opposition into eventual retreat. Trumps’ discussion with Tsai Ing-wen must be seen through the prism or feigned irrationality. Trump, a studious businessman, may have considered the strategies of past presidents and found the “Madman” hypothesis compelling for his ultimate goal: to leverage Chinese adamancy over core national interests like the Taiwan issue into an agreement over trade and jobs – his existential political pledge.

State Department says that the U.S. remains firmly committed to the “one China” policy, and that’s based on the three joint communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act and there’s been no change in U.S.'s longstanding policy with regard to Taiwan.

Taiwan long has been one of the globe’s most dangerous tripwires. Would the U.S. really risk Los Angeles for Taipei, as one Chinese general famously asked? Washington officials hope never to have to answer that question, but the recent Taiwanese missile misfire offers a dramatic reminder of the danger of guaranteeing other nations’ security.