US President Joe Biden’s news conference after his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on the sidelines of a G20 summit in Bali, Indonesia, revealed no progress on the increasingly tense US-China relationship. The conventional diplo-speak Biden used to describe their exchange of views — “We had an open and candid conversation about our intentions and our priorities” — raised more questions than it answered.
In their candor, did they say to each other’s face what they have repeatedly stated in public? Did Xi say that Taiwan’s integration into what can only be called the Chinese empire — including Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolia, Macau and Hong Kong — cannot be deferred for another generation and will be accomplished by force if Taiwanese do not submit “peacefully”? Did he also repeat that the US must stay out of it and not cross one of China’s many red lines?
Did Biden tell Xi directly what he told reporters and interviewers four times — that the US would use military force to defend Taiwan if China attacked it?
If the two were that frank with each other, how did the conversation proceed after they had established that their countries would go to war over Taiwan? Or did Biden issue the kind of warning a parent gives a misbehaving child, or the US gave Moscow when it failed to deter Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, saying “there will be consequences”?
Did they discuss escalation scenarios and what each would do in response to the other’s actions? For example, if China sank a US aircraft carrier or two with anti-ship missiles built and deployed for that purpose, killing 5,000 to 10,000 sailors, as one Chinese admiral recommended last year, would Washington retaliate by destroying bases in China, and/or the ships, planes or submarines from which the attack was launched? Did Biden inform Xi how the US Congress and the US public would react?
Did they examine the dangers of one side or the other resorting to nuclear weapons, as Chinese generals have also repeatedly threatened against hundreds of US cities? Or, that any exchange of military blows between the US and China would automatically mean World War III, as Biden said in response to Kyiv’s request for a US no-fly zone over Ukraine?
Did the two acknowledge to each other — and to themselves — that their respective red lines on Taiwan — Xi’s threat of force to achieve unification and Biden’s pledge to forcefully resist it — would inevitably be crossed and make war inevitable? Or did they simply express mutual satisfaction at having had a frank exchange?
Were these merely recitations of talking points for their domestic audiences?
Biden seemed to indicate there was a genuine meeting of the minds on the US’ commitment to Taiwan when he said: “I’ve met many times with Xi Jinping, and we were candid and clear with one another across the board. And I do not think there’s any imminent attempt on the part of China to invade Taiwan.”
Biden’s equanimity regarding China’s peaceful intentions toward Taiwan clashes with the views expressed by former and present US Navy officials.
Admiral Philip Davidson, a former commander of the US Indo-Pacific Command, last year said that China could attack Taiwan by 2027.
US Indo-Pacific Command Commander Admiral John Aquilino said: “This problem is much closer than most people think.”
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Beijing no longer accepts the “status quo” across the Taiwan Strait and has accelerated its time line to seize Taiwan.
Biden’s confidence in Xi’s peaceful intentions evokes his predecessor’s assertion that he had not been “duped” by Xi’s assurances about COVID-19.
Biden also said he told Xi that “the ‘one China’ policy — our ‘one China’ policy has not changed.”
The interjection of “our” was an allusion to Beijing’s invocation of its “one China” principle, which states that there is only one China in the world — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) — and that Taiwan is part of it. For Beijing, the pre-existing Republic of China no longer exists.
Biden did not bother to educate his audience that Washington agrees with the first half of China’s articulation — that there is only one Chinese state, the PRC — but whether Taiwanese choose to be part of it is their decision alone, a self-determination commitment that is anathema to the Chinese Communist Party.
We will eventually learn whether Biden demanded that the all-powerful Xi stop his officials from repeating the false assertion that Washington ever accepted Beijing’s claim that Taiwan belongs to China, and only recognized that this is China’s claim.
Biden should remind Xi that even former US president Richard Nixon, the father of US-China engagement, in 1994 wrote that China and Taiwan are now “permanently separated politically.”
Similarly, Biden must proclaim in an official statement that cannot be walked back by his staff that the antiquated US policy of strategic ambiguity on defending Taiwan is over.
Strategic clarity is the only way to avoid the strategic miscalculation that Biden fears from China and it cannot come from offhand responses to reporters.
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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS