While there is no prospect of the US-China relationship returning to what it used to be, it is worth revisiting some of US president-elect Joe Biden’s stated views on the subject.
First, in 1999, Biden was a key figure in the opposition to the US’ Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, a bill that never became law. It would not be considered a controversial bill today — many of its provisions have been included in other laws.
During a hearing of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on Aug. 4, 1999, Biden said: “The bill’s mistaken conclusion [is] that Taiwan’s security is primarily a function of its military capabilities. While it is true that deterrence is a significant component of Taiwan’s security, in my view, the reality is that no amount of weaponry alone can guarantee Taiwan’s security.”
“Taiwan’s security, in my view, flows from its democratic form of government, its growing economic, cultural and political contacts with the mainland, and, ultimately, the United States’ abiding commitment to a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question,” Biden said.
“Far from enhancing Taiwan’s security, I am concerned that passage of this legislation would be the equivalent of waving a red cape in front of Beijing and inviting China to charge,” he added.
Second, in 2001, responding to a reporter’s question whether the US had an obligation to defend Taiwan if it was attacked by China, then-US president George W. Bush said: “Yes, we do, and the Chinese must understand that. Yes, I would.”
The reporter asked a follow-up question: “With the full force of the American military?”
Bush said: “Whatever it took” to help Taiwan defend itself.
In a May 2, 2001, opinion article in the Washington Post, Biden criticized Bush, saying that the US should continue to maintain strategic ambiguity over whether it would come to Taiwan’s assistance.
Biden said: “There is a huge difference between reserving the right to use force and obligating ourselves, a priori, to come to the defense of Taiwan.”
The US’ Taiwan Relations Act states that if China seeks to “determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means,” it would be a matter of “grave concern to the United States.”
The central thrust of Biden’s article is that the US has no obligation to defend Taiwan.
Third, Biden said that the way to resolve the “Taiwan issue” centers on deepening the level of cross-strait interdependence.
During former US senator John Kerry’s 2004 presidential election bid, Biden said that Kerry hoped that the 800,000 Taiwanese investing and doing business in China would exert Taiwan’s influence, resulting in increased mutual dependence across the Taiwan Strait.
As time progressed, this would naturally develop into mutual acceptance, Biden said.
This position is very close to the pan-blue camp’s cross-strait policy — no wonder that they support Biden.
However, Biden’s democratic and liberal convictions run much deeper than those of US President Donald Trump, and therefore he would not “sell out” Taiwan to China.
The question is how much a Biden administration would be willing to pay to prevent China from annexing Taiwan.
Biden’s statements suggest that the US-Taiwan relationship would become more constrained by the US-China relationship than during the Trump years, and might even return to being guided by a strict interpretation of the Taiwan Relations Act.
This would entail “strategic ambiguity” and sales of defensive weaponry only. It might be some time before Taiwan is again able to purchase offensive weapons systems from the US.
Chen Shih-min is an associate professor at National Taiwan University’s political science department.
Translated by Edward Jones
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi lit a fuse the moment she declared that trouble for Taiwan means trouble for Japan. Beijing roared, Tokyo braced and like a plot twist nobody expected that early in the story, US President Donald Trump suddenly picked up the phone to talk to her. For a man who normally prefers to keep Asia guessing, the move itself was striking. What followed was even more intriguing. No one outside the room knows the exact phrasing, the tone or the diplomatic eyebrow raises exchanged, but the broad takeaway circulating among people familiar with the call was this: Trump did
Alarm bells over a “hollowing out” of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry and US demands for “protection money” have fueled a panic over Taiwan. To understand how misplaced these fears are, consider the movements of global technology giants. Nvidia Corp CEO Jensen Huang (黃仁勳), Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD) CEO Lisa Su (蘇姿丰) and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家) could undoubtedly understand the situation best, and they continue to make key investments in Taiwan. They do not make decisions on a whim. They are the architects of global computing power strategy and possess the highest levels of industry knowledge. No
RSS