Biden and the Future of Taiwan

What ending ‘strategic ambiguity’ would mean for the U.S., China and the world: A Dispatch Explainer

By
8

President Joe Biden said over the weekend that the U.S. military would defend Taiwan if it faced an “unprecedented attack” by China. White House officials quickly claimed that there has been no official change in policy, but this is the fourth time Biden has made such comments since taking office.

Is the policy of “strategic ambiguity” over? If so, what does that mean for the world’s most important bilateral relationship? 

What Is Strategic Ambiguity?

The Chinese Civil War ended in 1949 with a communist victory and the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The nationalist leaders of the Republic of China (ROC) fled to the island of Taiwan.

For 30 years the U.S. recognized the ROC in Taiwan as the legitimate government of China, but President Richard Nixon’s 1972 visit to the mainland started the process of normalizing relations with the PRC. Seven years later, the U.S. formally recognized the PRC while abrogating a mutual defense treaty with the ROC and severing formal diplomatic ties with its government.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
8
By
Comments (8)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Tom Doniphon

    Ambiguity is a mistake here. We should be crystal clear to the PRC that we will defend the RoC, as we should have been clear to Russia we would defend Ukraine.

    Clear signals provide effective deterrence providing the capability is there.

    Collapse
  2. Pohl

    Hmm. An increasingly sophisticated military threat, increasingly voicing its intentions towards its vulnerable neighbor, and we want to accelerate its decision-making by shifting our policy now. I think we should talk less and hasten our military assistance of Taiwan instead because that is their best deterrent.

    Collapse
  3. Andrew55

    President Joe Biden said over the weekend that the U.S. military would defend Taiwan if it faced an “unprecedented attack” by China. White House officials quickly claimed that there has been no official change in policy, but this is the fourth time Biden has made such comments since taking office.

    I hope this is intentional. The US could not do anything conventional other than air power. China has been building up their military for some time. This is in their back yard. If the US committed to war with China (I pray this does not happen) there would have to be reinstatement of the draft and a HUGE and rapid military buildup. Diplomacy would be a much more favorable option

    Collapse
  4. Bubba

    Is it too simplistic to observe that we would defend Taiwan from an overt invasion by China, but we would not get involved if we thought Taiwan started it? And we're not going to meddle in low stakes jostling between the two over mid-ocean borders.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    George.Skinner

    It's often forgotten that Taiwan is still called The Republic of China, and that it started as the island redoubt of the Nationalist Party after their defeat by the Communists in 1949. They'd never stopped claiming to be the legitimate government of China, and held China's UN Security Council seat into the 1970s. The rapprochement with China in the 1970s was largely an acknowledgement of reality. What's changed since then is the emergence of Taiwan as a real democracy and an abandonment of the pretense of reconquering China. Whatever realpolitik value existed in catering to China as a counterweight to the Soviet Union is long gone, and China's increasingly decided to position itself as a geopolitical and economic rival to the US and other liberal democratic countries. It's time to lead a movement to recognize Taiwan as an independent country. China can pitch a fit about it, but the more nations that follow the US in recognition, the fewer options China has for retaliation.

    Collapse
  6. Spepper222

    I agree with others who've stated the importance of living by our principles, and I'd add that an even better example of the shortcomings of strategic ambiguity has been the US stance towards Ukraine; we all know how that has turned out (tens of thousands of deaths, casualties, mass graves and destruction of countless lives). Of course it's impossible to live the counterfactual; i.e. if we (or NATO) had stood up for freedom and a self-determined democratic system for Ukraine earlier on, it probably (maybe?) would've deterred Putin from outright invasion. But it's also likely that the brinksmanship with European gas would have gone on in a colder version of economic conflict, and that probably would have been more successful at creating a divided Europe and a weaker NATO.

    With regard to the people of mainland China, I think it's important to remember the century of humiliation that the allegedly morally superior "west" imposed on them. I mean, really -- if a "free, democratic system" can exist side-by-side with a brutal system of business rapacity that carved up China -- Hong Kong to the British, Macau to the Portuguese, Tsingtao to the Germans (yes, that's why it's the best Chinese beer) -- AND forced the Chinese to import opium from India so that Britain's balance of trade didn't crash from the 19th c. English craze to buy all things Chinese, might a westerner not accept at least some blame for China's successful (anti-colonial) Communist revolution? And their ultimate defeat of the (also anti-colonial) Republican Government led by Chiang Kai Shek, which fled to Taiwan, which all agree is part of China? I think there are much larger human, emotional forces at work than a simplistic reading of "Democracy - good!", "Communism - bad!!" Of course we want democracy and self-determination to win and communism to lose, but how badly and at what cost do we want it? That's not appeasement, that's rational cost/benefit analysis, and a remembrance of our collective experiences in recent wars that seemed honorable and winnable that ended so, so badly.

    Collapse
  7. Duane Truitt

    Nixon's policy 50 years ago was simply a means of exploiting differences between the Soviets and the PRC, who fought a war in 1969 that nearly went nuclear. The Soviets of course were our main challengers at that time. It made sense then - it no longer makes sense today.

    The US has to stand for free peoples, true democratic government, and self determination - if not that, then what are we good for?

    The fact is no matter how much stronger the PRC appears today than 50 years, ago, they still are incapable of conquering the Republic of China - it would take an amphibious invasion completey dwarfing not only the invasion of France in 1944, but even dwarfing the planned and horrendously bloody invasion of Japan in 1945-1946. And those two invasions were only possible because at those times, the defenders were already spent forces, and allied forces enjoyed 100% air and sea dominance at the time of the invasion. Lacking that dominance, neither invasion would even have been attempted.

    The PRC has nowhere near the strength of forces of the Allies in Normandy and Japan in 1944 through 1946 ... and the PRC can never achieve total air and sea dominance either.

    The ChiComs know all of this of course, which is why they've settled for belligerent propaganda and occasional military exercises in futile attempts to scare and browbeat the Chinese ROCs into just giving up. It hasn't worked, and won't work.

    Ambiguity only encourages depotic invaders to go too far, far beyond their capabilities (as happened with both Germany and Japan in WW Two). However, despite their inevitable defeats, the fact that they launched their respective conquests cost the lives of more than 60 million people, and the vast destruction of their own nations as well as others.

    That's what ambiguity buys you. In 1938 they called the same thing "appeasement".

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Ed P

    Great analysis.

    I like the game Biden has been playing here. It is a pivot on strategic ambiguity. Biden has made clear he would have the US defend Taiwan while also keeping the “official US position” unchanged. Will this revised clarity/ambiguity be enough for China to issue retaliation in other arenas? It remains to be seen. But so far, it has not. And as long as that remains, the Biden admin strategy seems an improvement.

    One point here that should be called out explicitly is that China’s position on Taiwan has been substantially weakened by Russia’s failures in Ukraine. Pelosi’s trip was not practically possible without this. The world has largely rallied around Ukraine as Russia has been isolated. And the strength of a free people defending their freedom has been juxtaposed to an invading authoritarian force buckling under its own corruption and brutality- even if its not a reflection on China’s regime specifically, that is now the recent history and common perception.

    Biden admin’s patience and light-touch statecraft has been excellent and under appreciated, with some amazingly difficult pickles to contend with the past couple years. Keeping world war at bay, and keeping China and Russia from uniting will continue to be challenges of the utmost importance.

    Collapse