WASHINGTON — US presidents have spent decades trying to address the question of how strongly the United States will come to Taiwan’s aid if China invades it or, more likely, efforts to bring it back under control. I slowly tried to strangle the island. lead role.
US policy – called “strategic ambiguity” because it leaves it unclear how the United States will respond – does not lend itself to a difficult response. So the White House was quick to announce that on Thursday night’s CNN town hall event, President Biden was asked if the United States would defend Taiwan and he said, “Yes, we have a commitment to do that. “
“The President was not announcing any changes to our policy and there has been no change to our policy,” a White House statement said.
On Friday, the Secretary of Defense, Lloyd J. Austin III, and State Department spokesman, Ned Price, both elaborated on long-standing language to signal to Beijing that it should do nothing to change the status quo, and to Taipei that it should unite. Don’t even think of relying on the United States if it considers declaring independence.
Mr Biden’s words are a reminder of what Taiwan has been a minefield for the United States, 42 years after the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act and amid a massive build-up of Chinese military forces. And once the obscurity strategy is described in less-than-vague terms, as they did on Thursday, it’s hard to walk back.
Mr Biden is hardly new to the issue: he is one of the very few political figures who have been around Washington for so long that he voted for the act in 1979 as a young senator from Delaware. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he traveled to Taiwan and understood the nuances of words.
He understood it so well, in fact, that 20 years ago Mr. Biden warned President George W. Bush that “words matter” after Mr. Bush said he would “do whatever it takes to defend Taiwan”. ” will do. When, a few hours later, the Bush White House did what the current White House did, saying nothing had changed, Mr Biden wrote an opinion column in which he said “the United States is determined to defend Taiwan”. not obliged to.”
“There is a huge difference,” Mr Biden wrote in The Washington Post, “Between reserving the right to use force and compel oneself to come to the defense of Taiwan.” He accused Mr Bush of “not paying attention to details”.
Mr Biden’s blunt statement on Thursday to Anderson Cooper was not the first time he had made such a commitment.
In August, after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan some allies wondered how much they could rely on US commitments, they told ABC that “we will respond” if there is any action against the NATO ally, “also with Japan”. Same with “South Korea, Taiwan.”
In fact, treaty obligations with NATO, Japan, and South Korea differ significantly with those of Taiwan, or the Republic of China, which Beijing has declared as its territory since its establishment in 1949.
But that may be reflecting Washington’s willingness to toughen its language to counter new Chinese capabilities, which would allow for more subtle moves to strangle Taiwan — than a direct invasion — undersea. Cutting off cables, internet connections and liquefied natural gas shipments.
And some believe that the era of strategic ambiguity must come to an end – that ambiguity is no longer appropriate for the moment. “It’s been long in the tooth,” said Richard Haas, a former State Department senior and national security official who is now chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. “It’s time to change.” From strategic ambiguity to strategic clarity.“
Mr. Haas and many other experts and former government officials think it would be prudent for Beijing to clarify what kind of monetary penalty any attempt to take over Taiwan will result in.
It could also happen as Mr Biden delivers his long-delayed China strategy speech, laying out his vision for a country that is facing a military, economic and technological challenge on a scale the United States has not seen before. . But the White House is not ready to make any changes in its policies.
“What should be clear from all his comments on Taiwan is that our support for Taiwan is solid and we remain committed to peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits,” a State Department official said in a written statement.