US President Joe Biden has thrown yet another hand grenade on the Taiwan issue.
On 23 May, at a joint press conference in Tokyo with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida during his visit to Asia, Biden was asked if the US would intervene militarily to defend Taiwan. Biden said plainly: “Yes.”
The reporter pressed: “You are?”
Biden replied: “That’s the commitment we made.”
While reiterating that the US maintains a “one China” policy, Biden also stressed that the idea that Taiwan can be “just taken by force, is just not appropriate”. He added: “It would dislocate the entire region and be another action similar to what happened in Ukraine.”
The comments got the attention of the media. AFP White House reporter Sebastian Smith tweeted: “Biden’s affirmation that “yes” the US would defend Taiwan really raised adrenaline levels in that palace briefing room right now.”
The news quickly sparked international reactions, with attention turning to US policy on Taiwan, overshadowing Biden’s announcement on the same day of the launch of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF).
A gaffe one too many times
This is the third time in nine months that Biden has made a clear public stand about military intervention in Taiwan, in a break with the US’s policy of “strategic ambiguity” on Taiwan.
At a CNN town hall in October 2021, Biden said the US would defend Taiwan if Beijing attacked. He made similar remarks in August 2021 during an interview with ABC, in response to a question on whether Taiwan can still count on the US following the US troop pullout of Afghanistan.
Like the two previous occasions, Biden’s tone in Japan was firm. After he made the remarks, the White House quickly reiterated that there was no change to the US’s “one China” policy or its commitment to Taiwan. US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin quickly clarified the comments, stressing that the US’s “one China” policy and commitment to peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait have not changed. A source told CNN that Biden meant providing weapons, not deploying US forces.
So, was Biden speaking a truth he was not supposed to let out — that the US is indeed intending to drop its decades-long “strategic ambiguity” policy on Taiwan?
If Biden misspoke on the previous two occasions, is this also a gaffe?
Unlike his predecessor Donald Trump with all the wild talk and brinkmanship, Biden is a mature, seasoned politician. He may be old and sometimes does not speak too clearly, but it is difficult to explain three “gaffes” on the same topic.
So, was Biden speaking a truth he was not supposed to let out — that the US is indeed intending to drop its decades-long “strategic ambiguity” policy on Taiwan?
Some Western commentators think that Biden’s statements show his instinctive response to the issue. David Axelrod, who was a senior adviser to former US President Barack Obama, said in a New York Times article that “Biden has always been more open about his thinking than most politicians”. He added, “His strength is authenticity. His weakness is he’s sometimes more willing than his staff would like to share his thoughts.”
These actions show that while the US has made various comments, when it comes to playing the “Taiwan card”, it is not true that the US has no bottom line as some Chinese believe.
More to thwart China’s intentions
Following the Quad summit in Tokyo, Biden again clarified to the media on 24 May that the “policy has not changed at all”. What did he actually mean?
Judging by the swift clarifications issued by the White House and Biden’s staff, the US is not about to give up its decades-long “strategic ambiguity”. Biden’s comments were made more to affirm US commitment in maintaining security in the Taiwan Strait amid Beijing’s continued acts of military deterrence. Clearly, Washington wanted to send a strong warning to Beijing and assert US leadership.
This stance is in line with the objectives of Biden’s visit to East Asia, which were to strengthen US relations with Asian allies and partners, and to make clear that the US would not be distracted by the Ukraine war but stay the course on Indo-Pacific affairs and tackle the China challenge.
Since the visit was very much about countering China, Biden had to make a strong stand when asked about the mainland’s possible actions against Taiwan. Otherwise, the US’s Asian allies and partners would not be confident of the US’s commitment to the region.
Washington is certainly aware that staying ambiguous provides more flexibility than going all out if it wants to use the “Taiwan card” to restrain Beijing.
While Washington hopes to use Taiwan to keep China in check, it is aware that the Taiwan issue is Beijing’s red line. The exclusion of Taiwan as a founding member of the IPEF launched during Biden’s Japan visit may be a way of Washington not provoking Beijing too much.
Also, while the US is a strong advocate of Taiwan expanding its international space, despite urging the World Health Organization to invite Taiwan to participate as an observer at the World Health Assembly, it did not put up a formal proposal pushing for it.
These actions show that while the US has made various comments, when it comes to playing the “Taiwan card”, it is not true that the US has no bottom line as some Chinese believe. Washington is certainly aware that staying ambiguous provides more flexibility than going all out if it wants to use the “Taiwan card” to restrain Beijing.
However, the status quo in the Taiwan Strait is indeed changing. Following Beijing’s growing military pressure on Taiwan and the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war, international society is extremely worried that an armed conflict could break out in the Taiwan Strait. China-US relations are still at a low point with no signs of improvement, and both countries face great pressure from domestic politics and public opinion.
These factors increase the risk of a move from “strategic ambiguity” to “strategic clarity”, which will have dire consequences. If that happens, Beijing, Washington and Taiwan will not be the only ones that have to pay the price.
Related: Has the US shifted its position on Taiwan, again? | Taiwan is America's best asset against China, but for how long? | Lessons from Ukraine: Is it time to give up strategic ambiguity in the Taiwan Strait? | China-US relations: ‘Strategic clarity’ on Taiwan may lead to hot war | Did PLA fire new missiles over Biden's statement on Taiwan?
