Yes, Taiwan's possession of arms threatens China's "One China" policy, because it gives the Taiwanese people a way to rebel against China. China's plan is to control all the territories surrounding it. Many people in Taiwan do not like that plan. Giving the Taiwanese arms gives a way for them to give action to their rebellion.
America's sales of arms to Taiwan threatens the One China policy. It is clear that America does not want Taiwan to reunify with mainland China. If the dispute ever devolves into an armed conflict, Taiwan's arms would be a serious impediment in Beijing's ability to reclaim the island. China does not support these arms sales.
Yes, Taiwanese possession of arms threatens China's one China policy, because it allows for instability and ongoing confusion regarding legitimate governments in the region. That Taiwan has weapons complicates this, because it limits China's insistence on recognizing the People's Republic of China as the legitimate governing body. It is not surprising that a region with a strong military or weapons that might seek independence is a threat to Chinese unification.
Taiwan is it's own independent country and I believe that it is necessary to supply there military with weapons to be used for defense if China decide to launch an invasion or attack. Though I do believe that the U.S. should maintain strong economic ties with China and Taiwan. Also promote peaceful relations between the two countries.
China feels that Taiwan getting guns from the US is a threat to their foreign policy. The US, being the capitalists they are, say that if Taiwan wants to buy weapons they should be able to. Why is China so concerned with Taiwans ability to defend itself? Of course the arms sales threatens the "One China" policy. Giving Taiwan the ability to exercise its sovereignty and defend such with military force threatens the idea that China has control over the island.
Taiwan is an independent nation. It has a different government structure and different rulers. Additionally, Taiwan does not have the advantage of the protection of being part of mainland China Taiwanese possession of arms is, therefore, a wise measure of security for Taiwan in the event that it should need to protect itself.
The possession of arms doesn't threaten China's "one China" policy. The differing political views of both countries are what separate them, in addition to the huge amounts of water between mainland China and the island. Taiwan should remain as independent as possible ever since Chinese people fled the mainland when the communist revolution happened.
The TRA is part of American foreign policy for China and removing the arms sales would create a lopsided policy. The seesaw nature of the rhetorical debate has no substance because the social science majors cannot (or will not) dig deeper into the underlying legal foundations of the One China policy including the TRA. The TRA rests on a foundation of constitutional history that started in 1824 and it culminated in the 1936 case on military aircraft sales to foreign insurgents in South America. It is constitutional revisionism by Kissiner's Imperial Presidency to suggest that there is no congressional oversight of One China policy based on this 1936 case. The membership of the Taiwan separate customs territory in the WTO has deeper significance for One China policy than the US State Department lawyers want to disclose to the general public. Any reneging on the TRA statutory policies could trigger constitutional liabilities under the separation of powers. The Carter treaty termination in 1980 (Mutual Defense Treaty) has demonstrated the Taiwan issue rests on deep fissures in the constitutional history of the so-called Imperial Presidency. I would tread lightly if I worked for the State Department because of the plenary powers doctrine (1824-1936) might be exposing the executive branch to criminal liabilities of the Kissinger era (Bangladesh war crimes in 1971, KMT torture of DPP opposition leaders in ROC prisons today). The One China policy power trip has criminal vulnerabilities for proponents under the Convention on Torture and TRA human rights policy (torture of the people of Taiwan). The European courts and tribunals have evolved to create international criminal law liabilities for proponents of "indirect control" of forces in Bosnia or Northern Cyprus. Proponents of Henry Kissinger's One China policy might find themselves on trial with Henry Kissinger under the concept of JCE-3 joint criminal enterprise if European courts should ever get their paws on a Taiwan torture case. The One China policy has ominous warnings for modern Kissinger wannabes under the evolving international legal conditions of post-Cold War geopolitics. Painless torture claims could become a major liability for American proponents of the One China policy whenever they are constructively contravening the so-called "human rights" of the people of Taiwan.
Taiwan was only part of China for a blink of the eye, metaphorically speaking, notwithstanding the oft-repeated mythology to the contrary. The key international law requirement for asserting any territorial claim is de facto control. China had de facto control of Taiwan from 1945 to 1949 and at no other time in history. During he nineteenth century, the Qing government did not find out that Japanese forces had occupied Taiwan until two years after it had happened!
Later, In 1895, the Treaty of Shimonoseki made Taiwan a possession of Japan and Japan occupied and administered it until 1945 when it was awarded to the Kuomintang government of China. But four years later the Chinese government was overthrown and Taiwan has existed as a de facto independent state ever since.
So the incessantly repeated claim That Taiwan has always been "part of the motherland" is completely mythical. But more important, regardless of whether China had held Taiwan for four years or four hundred years, no other state in the world is accorded the right to claim territory on the basis that it possessed the claimed territory in the past. International law prohibits irredentist claims for all nations, with the special exception of China. The lure of that huge market has led to every foreign power accepting China's so-called "one policy", exempting China from the most fundamental tenet of international law, and grovelling at the feet of Beijing.
Taiwan is not China, and is not claiming to be China. Taiwan is a independent country. The citizens do not hold Chinese passport or pay taxes to China. Taiwan is Taiwan and China is China. More than 70% of people in Taiwan want to be independence not unification. So, one china and one Taiwan.
Selling a democratic state weapons to resist annexation by an authoritarian expansionist state is the morally correct thing to do. Especially since US policy is that Taiwan is a territory whose status awaits final determination. It was we who started this mess back in the late 1940s when, instead of permitting Taiwan a vote of the people to determine its future, we let the Chiang regime retreat there. We owe it to the 23 million people of Taiwan to sell them the weapons they need to make their own future.
Taiwan is not China, and is not claiming to be China. It holds its own elections, the citizens do not hold Chinese passport or pay taxes to China. It is a self-governed country in every sense of the word. If anything, not selling arms to Taiwan will cause instability to the region, since a well armed Taiwan will deter China from using its military to bully its neighbors.
No. Any sale of arms to Taiwan should not affect China's "one China" policy. Taiwan acts as a nation that wants to be independent of China, and they have the right to arm themselves as they see fit. As a result of Taiwan's leadership failing to adopt the "one China" policy, China has the right to discontinue trade with Taiwan. This sounds like 2 different governments making decisions to me.