What we need pretty pronto from the White House is an explanation as to whether this is a genuine policy shift away from decades of deliberate “strategic ambiguity” towards Taiwan, or whether this is a Biden misspeak. https://t.co/SNEE422WBg
President Joe Biden on Thursday said the US would come to the defense of Taiwan if the island were attacked by China, which considers it part of its territory.
"Yes," he responded when asked in a CNN town hall about defending Taiwan. "We have a commitment to that." — @AFP https://t.co/9C6zPp3aJp
Worth remembering that despite Biden’s comments the US does not currently have an explicit commitment to come to Taiwan’s defense. Taiwan is not a treaty ally like Philippines, Japan, South Korea etc.
Instead it has used a deliberate policy of “strategic ambiguity” — the idea being that such a position would deter both a Chinese invasion and a formal Declaration of Independence by Taiwan.
(The US is also bound by an act of Congress to sell Taiwan defensive weapons. It recognises PRC over RoC but does not accept Beijing’s claim to Taiwan & instead says the island’s future must be decided by its people and that no force should be used to change the status quo)
This worked. For decades. China never knew if an attack on Taiwan would trigger a US intervention while Taiwan’s pro-independence factions knew that there was no guarantee Washington would come to their aid if they went ahead with declaring an independent republic.
But there has been growing, serious discussion in US policy circles — and among allies — over whether strategic ambiguity works any more.
Under Xi Jinping China has grown increasingly bellicose towards Taiwan. It has also massively closed the military gap between US/China.
Meanwhile over the decades a distinct Taiwanese identity has emerged among Taiwan’s 23m population with fewer people seeing themselves as part of a bigger China.
Instead they see themselves as belonging to a thriving, progressive, sovereign democracy known as Taiwan.
If strategic ambiguity is no longer deterring a Chinese invasion — and if Taiwan’s people want to forge their own future — there is a school of thought arguing that ambiguity needs to be replaced by a concrete defence commitment.
But that is risky. Because a solid commitment to come to Taiwan’s aid — something Beijing has long feared — might just increase the likelihood of a Chinese invasion, the very act that commitment is supposed to deter.
WH Spox via @alexbward 👇🏼 https://t.co/j97PnKPC2Y
Biden did this before in August during an interview with ABC, insisting that the United States would always defend key allies, including Taiwan.
WH spokespeople back then also said this was no change in policy.
So this could be a calibrated/deliberate messaging tactic.
Thing is, will Beijing see it that way?
If it walks like a policy change and talks like a policy change...?
We will probably get our first clue this avo when China's Mofa holds its daily briefing.
Also worth a read 👇
https://t.co/C7ky43OT78
Current state of US "strategic ambiguity"
(ht @caseyayers for the 👌 screengrab) https://t.co/Kd9wwHrNTl
Not the first time a US president has made folks go "Wait, what?" on Taiwan policy.
George W in 2001 👇
https://t.co/mNVfhSK5VJ