The visit by French President Emmanuel Macron and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping (習近平) proved to be more momentous than expected. While Von der Leyen delivered a clear deterrent message on Ukraine, human rights and Taiwan, Macron gave Xi a double gift and seriously damaged Western solidarity.
First, he effectively legitimized Beijing’s claim to Taiwan by equating it to political unity in Europe, saying: “As Europeans, our concern is our unity. The Chinese are also concerned with their unity, and Taiwan is a component [of this unity] from their point of view.”
He did not mention Russian President Vladimir Putin’s claim of “Russian unity” to justify invading Ukraine.
Macron then distanced France from Washington’s position, saying: “Do we [Europeans] have an interest in speeding up on the subject of Taiwan? No. The worst of things would be to think that we Europeans must be followers [one translation said “vassals”] on this subject and adapt ourselves to an American rhythm and a Chinese overreaction.”
In a separate interview, he said: “We don’t want to get into a bloc versus bloc logic... We should not be caught up in a disordering of the world and crises that aren’t ours.”
So far, US President Joe Biden’s administration has downplayed the obvious schism between France and the rest of the West on China and Taiwan, but the gap is too wide to ignore.
Before the neo-isolationist posture of Macron gains momentum in Europe, Biden needs to articulate not only the moral basis for defending Taiwan against Chinese aggression, but also the strategic imperative.
Taiwan in the hands of an aggressive communist China would threaten Southeast Asia just as Imperial Japan did in World War II using its “unsinkable aircraft carrier,” as US General Douglas MacArthur described Formosa. What Macron calls “crises that aren’t ours” suddenly would be everyone’s, as happened on Dec. 7, 1941.
Biden needs to formalize his four off-hand commitments to defend Taiwan. Whether China took at face value any of those remarks or the single less explicit ones by former US presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump is unknown, because administration officials immediately said US policy had not changed, without stating what the policy is on defending Taiwan.
That no US administration has been willing to make that commitment in a formal policy declaration dilutes the deterrent message to China’s political leaders and strategic planners.
The US policy of strategic ambiguity on Taiwan was stated concisely by former US assistant secretary of defense Joseph Nye during the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1995. When asked by Chinese officials what the US would do if China attacked Taiwan, he said: “We don’t know and you don’t know; it would depend on the circumstances.” Nye did not mention the Taiwan Relations Act, which requires the US to “maintain the capacity to resist” a use of force against Taiwan, but does not mandate it.
Then-US secretary of defense William Perry said Nye’s statement “perfectly” expressed US policy, and no administration since has repudiated or modified it. The Trump and Biden administrations quietly opposed the US Congress’ attempts to clarify Washington’s resolve through the Taiwan Invasion Prevention Act, which would have provided advance authorization for the executive branch to come to Taiwan’s defense.
Now that Macron has urged the US’ allies in Europe to stay out of the US-China confrontation over Taiwan, Biden needs to make the public case for Western unity even more strongly than he has on Ukraine.
Joseph Bosco is a fellow of the Institute for Taiwan-American Studies.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS