in the media

A Black Hole in the Global Nonproliferation Regime: The Case of Taiwan

Taiwan is effectively a legal black hole in the realm of nonproliferation cooperation. The international community needs to find a way to ensure a sustainable commitment to nonproliferation by those, like Taiwan, who are outside the international system.

published by
Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability
 on September 8, 2011

Source: Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability

A Black Hole in the Global Nonproliferation RegimeTaiwan occupies a unique niche in the world community that necessitates enhanced participation in the global nonproliferation regime. It is one of the world’s key suppliers and consumers of high-tech, dual-use goods and technology. It has a reasonably-advanced nuclear energy program that further increases the flow of sensitive materials and technology. The island is located at the intersection of the world’s major sea-lanes, making it a major transit and transshipment hub. Most critically, there have been attempts (some of which succeeded) to smuggle WMD-sensitive goods out of Taiwan, as well as across its territory.  

Despite the critical security concerns arising as a result of these factors, Taiwan is effectively a legal and political ‘black hole’ in the realm of international nonproliferation cooperation. This is due to its ‘non-state’ status, which prevents it from participating in multilateral nonproliferation treaties and export control regimes, and limits its access to information and intelligence sharing from national and international security agencies. In spite of these challenges, Taiwan demonstrates a relatively strong commitment to upholding the principles and objectives of the global nonproliferation regime. However, given the importance of the issue, the international community cannot afford to remain complacent in addressing a key question: how to ensure a sustainable commitment to nonproliferation by an “outsider” to the international system?
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.