In an Oct. 31 interview, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said: “The United States will follow the Taiwan Relations Act to ensure Taiwan’s self-defense and will not allow any party to take unilateral actions to break the status quo.”
This seems different from US President Joe Biden’s declaration that “we have a commitment to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack.”
However, a comparison of Blinken’s comment with a speech that he made on April 11 shows consistency. The US will continue to support the peaceful resolution of cross-strait issues.
Any attempt to change the “status quo” by force would be a serious mistake, Blinken said on April 11.
However, he has not answered the hypothetical question of whether the US would send troops to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack.
Does Biden’s phrase “assist the defense of Taiwan” mean that the US’ policy of “strategic ambiguity” has moved toward “strategic clarity”?
For the US, the greatest common denominator for conflict management across the Taiwan Strait is to oppose any unilateral change to the “status quo” under the framework of the Taiwan Relations Act, the “six assurances” and the Three Joint Communiques.
This is also the long-standing consensus between the Democratic and Republican parties in the US.
“Strategic ambiguity” is to constrain Beijing from taking unilateral military action to achieve unification with Taiwan and to prevent Taiwan from unilaterally declaring independence. The US has always used “strategic ambiguity” to form a delicate balance between Taiwan and China.
When the US Department of State speaks, it must consider the stakes at all levels of diplomacy, so it sometimes adopts a neutral or vague stance in striving for the largest operational flexibility.
In other words, a consideration of the position of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the domestic consensus in the US prompts the department to adopt a more neutral statement, which is: “resolutely oppose any unilateral change of the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.”
Biden’s main target audience for his remarks on “assisting in defense of Taiwan” are Americans, US allies — including Taiwan, Japan and South Korea — and the national leader of the CCP.
Regarding Americans, Biden’s aim is to express his stance on China and continue to attract the support of people who harbor anti-Chinese sentiments.
Regarding Taiwan, his aim is to affirm the US’ security commitment and to bolster the confidence of regional allies — Japan, South Korea and others in the Indo-Pacific region — that the US will honor its security assurances.
Regarding the CCP, his aim is nothing more than to urge it not to misjudge the situation and act rashly.
However, Washington must maintain an overwhelming military advantage over Beijing for “strategic ambiguity” to be effective.
When the US military is challenged by the escalating capabilities of the Chinese military — leaving “strategic ambiguity” unsustainable — Washington might move toward “dual strategic clarity,” meaning that it would separately indicate possible actions if either party unilaterally changes the “status quo.”
However, to preserve flexibility in its tactical response, the US could add a new policy of “tactical ambiguity” to its diplomatic repertoire.
Jeff Sheng is chief researcher at the American Chamber of Commerce in Kaohsiung.
As Taiwan strives to attract more international students, yet another embarrassing incident of mistreatment came to light this week. The incident, involving students from Uganda, is yet another blemish on the nation’s human rights record, which is otherwise progressive. Online media firm The Reporter wrote in an investigative report that Ugandan students at Chung Chou University of Science and Technology in Changhua County’s Yuanlin City (員林) were denied promised scholarships and forced to work overnight factory shifts after they had been promised “paid internship opportunities.” There were also few classes in English compared with what was advertised, students said. Like many migrant workers
US-China relations are built on a series of fabrications about Taiwan. In fact, one of the major reasons the US-China relationship is so contentious right now is that Chinese belligerence is exposing these carefully constructed fictions to common sense. Readers know the story. In the 1970s and 1980s, American officials said what they needed to make common cause with Beijing vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. Diplomats couldn’t talk about Taiwan as a “country” — let alone an independent one — which it so clearly is. They enshrined in US policy that “all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there
Once a month, a government vehicle pulls up outside Government House, the official residence of Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥), and an official from the Treasury Bureau alights to deliver a case laden with wads of Hong Kong dollar bank notes. Like the godfather of a mafia organization, Lam stockpiles her monthly salary in cash at her home. This is because Lam, who earns an annual salary of HK$5.2 million (US$667,517) and is one of the world’s highest-paid leaders, has no bank account. After Lam colluded with Beijing to impose a new National Security Law on the territory in
As we embark upon a new year, tensions across the Taiwan Strait continue to heighten by the day. While countries around the world are preoccupied with combating a fresh wave of COVID-19, China is using the opportunity to employ increasingly repressive measures in Hong Kong, Xinjiang — particularly to Turkic Uighurs — and Inner Mongolia. Meanwhile, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army is using every method at its disposal to continue to harass Taiwan, elevating the Taiwan Strait on a par with Ukraine as an issue of primary concern for the international community. Paradoxically, Taiwan’s economic and trade dependence on China has not declined,