[This piece has been published in Restoring America to highlight how President Joe Biden’s policy shifts regarding Taiwan undermine American strength in the region.]
For the fourth time in just over a year, President Joe Biden has made a statement that appears to recalibrate U.S. policy on Taiwan. On Sunday night, 60 Minutes aired a pre-recorded interview in which Biden asserted that U.S. forces would defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion. White House officials insisted that U.S. 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 U.S. policy. The reason appears to be that his team interprets U.S. 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 U.S. policy aim has not changed. But the strategy for achieving this objective has changed. Biden is choosing to be less ambiguous about U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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: 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 U.S. leaders should acknowledge that a status quo objective need not equate to a status quo strategy – the U.S. approach is clearly shifting as U.S. leaders recalibrate dual deterrence. It is time for Biden’s team to clearly articulate the administration’s approach to Taiwan.
This article originally appeared in the AEIdeas blog and is reprinted with kind permission from the American Enterprise Institute.
