US President Joe Biden on Wednesday told the UN General Assembly that the US seeks to “uphold peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait” and remains committed to the “one China” policy, three days after he said the US would commit troops to Taiwan’s defense if there was “an unprecedented attack.”
After Biden on Sunday said during an interview that the US would send troops to defend Taiwan if China attempted an invasion, the White House said its Taiwan policy had not changed, leading to speculation that the White House was walking back the president’s comments.
It might also seem that Biden’s speech at the UN contradicted his comments on Taiwan during the interview, but the White House and Biden have been consistent on US policy.
Washington’s position has always been to oppose any unilateral change to the Taiwan-China relationship. Boosting sales of defensive weapons to Taiwan — which is the core purpose of the proposed US Taiwan policy act — and committing US troops to defend Taiwan are not in conflict with upholding the “status quo” in the Taiwan Strait. As an invasion attempt would be a unilateral change to the Taiwan-China relationship, the US would be justified in defending Taiwan.
That is not to say there has been no change to the US’ approach to its relations with Taiwan and China. The US is clearly focusing more attention on Taiwan, which is reflected in recent legislation and public comments by Biden and US senators.
However, Washington also hopes it can deter unilateral action by China, which is the purpose of its warship transits in the Taiwan Strait and the increased arms sales to Taiwan.
Washington had sought to deter Beijing by maintaining “strategic ambiguity” on Taiwan, but the increase in Chinese military aggression over the past year has shown that ambiguity is not helping it achieve that aim.
Researcher Chieh Chung (揭仲) from the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) National Policy Foundation think tank said he believed the US “would definitely in some way intervene” if China attempted an invasion, because staying on the sidelines would undermine the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy.
Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Lo Chih-cheng (羅致政), a member of the legislature’s Foreign Affairs and National Defense Committee, said: “It is hard to imagine that the US would just sit back” if a conflict were to break out in the Strait, but “Washington immediately sending troops to help Taiwan is also unlikely.”
It remains unclear what the US would do in the event of a conflict in the Taiwan Strait, but it seems increasingly clear that it would get involved and — if Biden is to be believed — that involvement would mean sending troops. Given that Biden has publicly reiterated this claim multiple times, it is unlikely he made the comments in error, or that he was confused about Washington’s policy.
Biden would also have been informed of the interview questions ahead of time, so his responses would have been thought through. It might be that he is privy to strategic plans that he cannot speak about publicly, or that Washington hopes to play both sides of the coin to keep Beijing confused — letting Biden speak about troop commitments, while denying such plans afterward. Either way, it is highly likely that the US military has plans to respond to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
Taipei must continue to improve the nation’s defense capabilities and cooperate with US officials as much as possible. It should also continue to express to China its rejection of unification, and its resolve to defend the nation’s sovereignty and democracy.
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the
RSS