US President Joe Biden has just become the third president in 20 years to declare or strongly imply that the US would defend Taiwan against an attack from China. He also became the third president to stand corrected by the foreign policy establishment within and outside the government.
In April 2001, then-US president George W. Bush answered affirmatively when asked whether the US would protect Taiwan.
When pressed, he said the US would do “whatever it took.”
In August last year, then-US president Donald Trump was asked the same question in a Fox television interview.
“China knows what I’m gonna do. China knows,” he said, his tone suggesting firm action.
During a CNN town hall meeting last month, Biden was asked about China’s test of a hypersonic missile: “What will you do to keep up with them militarily, and can you vow to protect Taiwan?”
“Yes, and yes,” Biden replied.
Host Anderson Cooper followed up: “So are you saying that the United States would come to Taiwan’s defense if China attacked?”
“Yes. Yes, we have a commitment to do that,” Biden answered.
The three-yes response aroused immediate attention in Taipei, Washington and Beijing. Two weeks before,Biden had reported on his 90-minute telephone conversation with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and made this curious statement: “I’ve spoken with Xi about Taiwan. We agree ... we’ll abide by the Taiwan agreement. We made it clear that I don’t think he should be doing anything other than abiding by the agreement.”
Biden did not specify what US-China “agreement” he meant, and in an ABC television interview in August, he mentioned the US pledge to protect NATO allies and added: “Same with Japan, same with South Korea, same with Taiwan.”
After each of these comments, questions were raised about whether Biden was simply confused or was indicating that the US’ policy toward Taiwan and the strategic ambiguity surrounding it had changed.
In each case, the stock official reply was that the US position remains as is.
“The president was not announcing any change in our policy, and there is no change in our policy,” the US Department of State said last month.
However, the pattern presents a perplexing question for Americans and interested foreign observers. Why have presidents of both parties periodically, and emphatically, made slips of the tongue indicating that the US would go to war with China over Taiwan if necessary to save it?
The obvious follow-up question is this: Did Washington decide secretly at some point that it would defend Taiwan if China attacks — and even made that clear privately to Beijing, as Trump’s tone implied?
If China has been sternly warned, why are US officials averse to uttering the words and declaring the commitment publicly? There are at least three reasons, two of which relate to anticipated Taiwanese behavior, and the third to China’s.
The most common speculation is that Washington does not want to give independence-minded Taiwanese any encouragement to push ahead and provoke Beijing into responding militarily. The core “red line” in China’s Anti-Secession Law is a declaration of independence by Taiwan.
The last time Taiwan even considered such an action was in 2003, when then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) proposed a referendum on the question.
Irate Washington officials warned that if Taiwan precipitated conflict with China, it could not count on US support and would be on its own.
Taiwan’s voters decided not to take the chance and declined even to formalize the referendum.
The second scenario Washington wishes to avoid would have Taiwan, knowing the US would intervene, failing to take the necessary measures to bolster its own defenses.
This concern about a “free-rider” mentality is not unique to Taiwan. Trump made it a point of contention with the US’ more formal allies, such as Japan, South Korea and NATO.
He was criticized for abrasiveness, but it got results, as NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg acknowledged.
The fear is misplaced with President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), who has committed Taiwan to its own strong self-defense posture, with or without US backup.
The third basis for finessing an explicit US warning to China is to avoid throwing down a gauntlet to Beijing that China’s hardliners would consider a direct challenge to Chinese sovereignty and nationalist pride. As long as the deterrent message is conveyed and understood privately, it has been said, the public ambiguity saves face for China and relative stability is preserved.
Adherents to that view can point to a recent speech by Xi after a week of sharply heightened tensions from 150 Chinese combat aircraft entering Taiwan’s air defense identification zone.
On Oct. 9, Xi used more conciliatory language about Taiwan, saying that China’s goal is “peaceful unification.”
He did not mention that the default position in China’s Anti-Secession Law provides for the use of “non-peaceful means” whenever China decides it has waited long enough for Taiwan to submit “peacefully.”
Interestingly, Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose forces have recently been conducting exercises with China’s, chimed in a few days later, saying he sees no reason that China and Taiwan cannot unify without the need to use force.
He said Beijing could achieve its goal of “peaceful reunification” using its economic leverage over Taiwan: “China is a huge powerful economy, and in terms of purchasing parity, China is the economy No. 1 in the world, ahead of the United States now.”
It remains to be seen if this was a spontaneous intervention by Putin to lower US-China tensions or was done in coordination with Beijing.
In any event, while Biden likely welcomes the breather, he and his administration should not feel any obligation to divert from the course he said he is on.
“I don’t want a cold war with China. I just want to make China understand that we are not going to step back. We are not going to change any of our views,” Biden said.
Ceasing its multiple breaches of Taiwan’s air defense identification zone — which should not have occurred — does not entitle Beijing to any reward on Taiwan, trade, maritime freedom, human rights or other issues. Offering concessions, such as paying ransom, would simply encourage future pressure for more.
Biden needs to proceed with the Taiwan Representative Office name change, and to invite Taiwan to the Summit for Democracy, the RIMPAC naval exercises next year, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief joint exercises.
Publicly declaring the US’ intention to defend Taiwan would end the need to consult administration oracles, eliminate any lingering doubts or confusion in Beijing, and advance the cause of regional peace and stability.
Joseph Bosco, who served as China country director in the office of the US secretary of defense, is a fellow of the Institute for Taiwan-American Studies and a member of the Global Taiwan Institute’s advisory committee.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
RSS