For the fourth time in just over a year, Joe Biden has made a statement that appears to recalibrate US policy on Taiwan. On Sunday night, 60 Minutes aired a pre-recorded interview in which Biden asserted that US forces would defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion. White House officials insisted that US policy has not changed, but the reality is that this assertion is no longer tenable. The President is making policy, whether intentionally or not. With this in mind, here are five points for observers to consider:
- Presidential statements create policy: The administration has insisted that none of Biden’s four statements on Taiwan have changed US policy. The reason appears to be that his team interprets US policy on Taiwan as aiming to maintain the status quo, and they think Biden is trying to express support for this objective. In this sense, the US policy aim has not changed. But the strategy for achieving this objective has changed. Biden is choosing to be less ambiguous about US intentions in case of an unprovoked attack on Taiwan. Biden’s advisors should acknowledge this inescapable reality.
- Ambiguity mixed with historical confusion: Biden’s personal views are now quite clear. But so too is the fact that he does not understand past US agreements and policy. Biden has stated four times that he would support Taiwan militarily if China invades, or that he believes the United States already has a commitment to do so. But contrary to his statements, the United States no longer has an Article V guarantee with Taiwan, and US leaders did not sign a “Taiwan agreement” in the 1970s. Even if Biden is being clearer about his intentions, this historical confusion is muddying the waters.
- Strategic ambiguity exists on a spectrum: Although some frame strategic clarity and strategic ambiguity as binary choices, the reality is that they exist on a spectrum (Chinese policy on Taiwan also exists on a similar spectrum). Biden’s words shift US policy on this spectrum, just as Xi Jinping’s words and actions have done the same in recent years. But Biden’s comments do not amount to full strategic clarity. It remains unclear how the United States would intervene or what would constitute an “unprecedented attack” on Taiwan. Ambiguity may be decreasing, but it is not yet dead.
- Contradictory messaging but not cheap talk: Some have dismissed Biden’s comments as “cheap talk,” but, notably, Biden avoided making similar promises before Russia invaded Ukraine. In that case, he explicitly stated “our forces are not and will not be engaged in a conflict with Russia in Ukraine.” On Taiwan, Biden has repeatedly said the opposite. This is a significant signal. But it also contradicts the administration’s recent message that congressional leaders should focus on deeds rather than words when it comes to Taiwan.
- Major Taiwan policy speech needed: President Biden will keep getting asked about Taiwan and if past behavior is any indicator, he will keep restating policy in new and different ways. I remain convinced that Biden’s statements have not been pre-planned, but fewer and fewer agree. The administration should acknowledge this reality and give a major speech outlining its Taiwan policy in detail. The key point should be that the administration’s objective is to maintain the status quo. But US leaders should acknowledge that a status quo objective need not equate to a status quo strategy – the US approach is clearly shifting as US leaders recalibrate dual deterrence. It is time for Biden’s team to clearly articulate the administration’s approach to Taiwan
Biden’s Statements on Taiwan
September 2022: “We agree with what we signed onto a long time ago. And that there’s One China policy, and Taiwan makes their own judgments about their independence. We are not moving—we’re not encouraging their being independent… that’s their decision… Yes [US forces would defend Taiwan] if in fact there was an unprecedented attack.”
May 2022: “Yes… That’s the commitment we made… We agree with a One China policy. We’ve signed on to it and all the intended agreements made from there. But the idea that, that it can be taken by force, just taken by force, is just not, is just not appropriate.”
October 2021: “Yes, we have a commitment… I’ve spoken with Xi about Taiwan. We agree… we’ll abide by the Taiwan agreement. We made it clear that I don’t think he should be doing anything other than abiding by the agreement.”
August 2021: “We made a sacred commitment to Article V that if in fact anyone were to invade or take action against our NATO allies, we would respond. Same with Japan, same with South Korea, same with—Taiwan.”
The post The Fourth Taiwan Strait Slip-Up appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.