I have no major disagreement with @nktpnd's answer to @DanDePetris, but I think there's more to this. Allow me to explain. https://twitter.com/nktpnd/status/1300607140214833152

In his @Heritage speech today, @USAsiaPacific A/S Stilwell, following his own discussion of the 6 Assurances, said: "It is important to review history like this because Beijing has a habit of distorting it. So we should go back and consult the facts as often as we’re able."

I see declassification of the Six Assurances as very much--perhaps primarily--about undercutting PRC attempts to "distort" history. When PRC actors accuse the US of straying from the Three Communiques, we haven't had the full historical record to review.

With these newly published documents, we--and by "we," I mean scholars, analysts, journalists, foreign governments, etc.--have the following info:

-how Reagan thought about the forthcoming 1982 communique
-what Reagan instructed his ambassador to the PRC to convey to Deng about arms sales
-what Reagan instructed his ambassador to the ROC to convey to Chiang about the 1982 negotiations

In other words, declassifying these memos is *not* primarily intended to tell the PRC what the PRC already knows. It *is* intended to tell the *rest of the world* what the PRC already knows.

It publicly undercuts the PRC's preferred narrative--that the US isn't abiding by commitments made in 1982. We now have a fuller understanding of what was promised to Deng. Indeed, paragraphs 1-5 of the Eagleburger memo are arguably more important than the Six Assurances.

Again, the declassified documents need to be viewed as complementing the Stilwell speech today. The memos make crystal clear that the US commitment to end arms sales to Taiwan was premised entirely on Chinese behavior. Well, what did Stilwell say today?

"In recent years, the Chinese Communist Party has targeted Taiwan with diplomatic isolation, bellicose military threats and actions, cyber hacks, economic pressure, “United Front” interference activities – you name it...

"These actions challenge the peace and stability of the Western Pacific. Let’s be clear: These destabilizing actions come from Beijing, not from Taipei or Washington...

"We support the longtime status quo across the Taiwan Strait. Beijing has unilaterally altered it, through flipping of diplomatic partners, pushing Taiwan out of international organizations, stepped up military maneuvers, and other activities. So we must act to restore balance."

Together, the Stilwell speech and the memos make the case for continued arms sales to Taiwan.

Indeed, not only do the memos explain clearly the longstanding US government position on arms sales, they describe actions at the time that make crystal clear how serious Reagan was about his presidential directive on arms sales....

For even as Reagan & Deng were negotiating, the US was moving forward with airpower upgrades for Taiwan and planning major defense talks. Even as the negotiations were proceeding, the PRC threat to Taiwan remained significant. As Stilwell made clear earlier, it's worse today.

As for the question of "resolve"--again, no major disagreement with @nktpnd--I look not to today's declassified documents but to Stilwell's speech. In particular, I look to something entirely unspoken.

The subheading for the section of the speech on the Six Assurances is "Longstanding Strategic Clarity." Combine that with what FT reported today: "discussions with the administration on the future of 'strategic ambiguity.'" Well, that is intriguing indeed. https://www.ft.com/content/24e87b4b-b146-4ea8-a9b2-9f801af21ea6