Like West Berlin in the 20th century, Taiwan is standing on the front line of a hegemonic battle between the leader of the free world and a rising authoritarian superpower. Washington has pursued a policy of “strategic ambiguity” in the past few decades, but now it must shift toward “strategic clarity” due to political realities.
The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) suggests that any military threat to Taiwan should be of critical concern to the US. Yet incidents of Chinese military aircraft crossing into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone have become so common that it has been normalized for Taiwanese. This indifference to the threat should signal an alarm for the US.
Within Washington, strategic ambiguity is no longer considered viable given that US President Joe Biden has publicly said four times that the US would come to Taiwan’s defense. In addition, the rapid militarization of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army has made strategic ambiguity an inapplicable approach.
US policymakers hold bipartisan support for bolstering relations with Taiwan. It is difficult, if not impossible to find a member of the US Congress who does not support Taiwan.
However, that bipartisan commitment is only a mutual acknowledgment of the importance of Taiwan. US decisionmakers lack a consensus on what an intervention against a Chinese invasion would look like, raising concerns that Washington would not respond decisively during a Chinese invasion.
The bipartisan commitment is by all means a critical asset between Taiwan and the US. The efforts of US lawmakers have certainly boosted the nations’ relationship, and increased Taiwan’s ability to defend itself through arms sales and military collaborations. What is often forgotten is the necessity of a united voice to show the determination Americans have on this particular issue.
In March 2021, former US Indo-Pacific Command commander admiral Phil Davidson testified to the US Congress that an invasion could happen “in the next six years.” Meanwhile, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has expressed serious doubts that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan was “imminent.”
These are not isolated incidents of individuals holding different opinions on the issue. During a US House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means hearing on the US-Taiwan Initiative on 21st-Century Trade First Agreement Implementation Act, US Representative Richard Neal, in reference to Taiwan’s de facto independence status, said that “America backs that independence.”
In June, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken made a contradicting statement during his visit to China, saying that “we [the US government] do not support Taiwan independence.”
The TRA and many other pro-Taiwan legislation that help enhance Taiwan’s capability to defend itself have a critical role in deterring China from invading. Yet the consistency in message shown by US officials is just as crucial.
The TRA requires the president to inform the US Congress promptly of any anticipated danger to Taiwan, and consult with it to devise an appropriate response. With widely divided opinions between the executive and legislative branches, it is hard to imagine the US government being able to act with mutual support from both. A partisan debate within the US government might occur when a decisive consensus is needed the most.
In addition, the lack of coherence damages the credibility of the US military, and, more importantly, sends a weak message that the US perceives Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) as unpredictable and that US decisionmakers are divided on the issue. This is certainly not the message the US wants to broadcast.
While holding differing opinions on issues as complicated as Taiwan can be viewed positively, as it allows more careful and complex analysis to be considered, Taiwan is facing a threat that does not allow for a leisurely debate. A unanimous consensus might not feel urgent now, because an invasion has not occurred, but if it does, the US government will be far behind its intervention agenda, given a lack of coherence on how it wants to respond.
Xi has made it clear that unification with Taiwan is a must. It is therefore necessary for Washington to develop firm internal and external stances.
The US would not seek war against China, and neither would Taiwan. To deter China from invading Taiwan, the US needs to make Xi fear the consequences of war. Americans must let the aggressive Chinese expansionists see their determination to hold them accountable. To establish this determination, the US must first gather its high-ranking officials and publicly come up with a consolidated, consistent foreign policy toward Taiwan.
As the leading opponent in the global hegemonic battle against China, the US must bear the duty of helping Taiwan preserve what it is. Therefore, Americans must come to an internal consensus to let the aggressive Chinese expansionists fear the consequences of any attempt to annex Taiwan.
Albert Wang is a political science and global studies student at the University of Washington, and an intern for the Democratic Progressive Party’s Department of International Affairs. He has also interned for the Formosan Association for Public Affairs, a lobbying organization advocating for Taiwan-US relations on Capitol Hill.
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
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
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
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.
RSS