Original title: Is Biden's promise to "protect Taiwan" a "slip of the tongue"?
Source: Hong Kong China News Agency, October 22
Reporter: Shizuko Yin tian
US President Biden was asked by CNN reporters on the 21st local time that "if Chinese mainland attack Taiwan, will the United States protect Taiwan" when responding that "the United States has commitments in this regard." Taiwanese media have hyped that this is Biden's first "clear statement."
In fact, Biden made a similar speech in August this year. In response to the "US abandonment of Taiwan theory" caused by Afghanistan's "change of heaven", Biden said that the United States has "always kept its promises" and responded to any NATO member invasion, "the same is true for Taiwan." In October, Biden blurted out the "Taiwan Agreement" that also aroused suspicion. However, the two "slips of the tongue" have attracted the rapid "firefighting" of the US officials, stressing that the US policy toward Taiwan has not changed.
Source: People's Daily Overseas Edition
China News Service: This time, is Biden's "promise" still a "slip of the tongue"? Are there any other considerations for the "slip of the tongue" three times in a row in the past two months?
Director Wang Yong: At present, Sino-US relations are developing in the direction of relaxation, and the reason why Biden has taken a tough stance on the Taiwan issue is that it has a lot to do with the political pressure in the United States, including the Republican Party's attack on the Biden administration as too soft on China, such as seeking cooperation with China on climate issues.
Biden is also under pressure from China. China's anti-"Taiwan independence" and unambiguous position on the issue of sovereignty, and the use of hard-line means such as fighter jet cruises to warn of "Taiwan independence" and the intervention of the United States, have also brought pressure to Biden. Under the dual pressure, Biden will make some more "excessive statements" on the Taiwan issue and have an explanation for the country. Therefore, it is not excluded that his remarks have certain political considerations.
However, from the perspective of strategic layout, the United States is currently in a state of strategic contraction, hoping to reduce foreign intervention, strengthen domestic construction, and pay more attention to domestic issues. On the Taiwan issue, the United States hopes to reach a consensus with China to maintain the status quo, but at the same time, it will also put on a tough posture and play a posture that can compete with China.
It is undeniable that there has always been a force in the United States that hopes to curb China's possibility of "armed aggression against Taiwan" by promoting "strategic clarity."
China News Service: Indeed, with the recent escalation of tensions in the Taiwan Strait, the call to abandon "strategic ambiguity" has risen again. Some MEMBERS of the US Senate and Representatives claimed that changing the "strategic ambiguity" would have a "calming effect" on China's armed attack on Taiwan. But Burns, Biden's latest nominee for ambassador to China, has clearly opposed abandoning "strategic ambiguity," stressing that the ONE-China policy of the United States is the wisest and most effective way to curb China's use of force against Taiwan. Within the United States, the disagreement over whether to abandon the policy of "strategic ambiguity" is which side has the advantage?
Director Wang Yong: Whether it is "strategic ambiguity" or "strategic clarity", there is actually a big debate in the United States, in terms of think tanks, Richard Haas, president of the Us Foreign Relations Committee, has also previously published a clear proposition through an article, believing that "strategic clarity" should be. There are also members of the US Congress who are ideologically biased and emphasize the need to change the US policy of "strategic ambiguity".
However, some experts and scholars who understand the current situation of Sino-US relations and the Taiwan issue are more likely to adhere to "strategic ambiguity," because "strategic clarity" may boost the morale of "Taiwan independence" and make them fearless, and further stimulate China's determination to oppose external forces interfering in national reunification, which may involve the United States and write a so-called empty check for "Taiwan independence."
The current point of contention between the two factions is: First, is it so urgent for the Chinese side to reunify by force? Second, is there a timetable? Those who support "strategic ambiguity" argue that China is not in a hurry. In fact, the same is true of China's official stance, constantly emphasizing that realizing the reunification of the motherland by peaceful means is most in the interests of the Chinese nation as a whole.
It should be emphasized that China's intensified preparations for armed forces are mainly aimed at "Taiwan independence" and international intervention forces, not at the people of Taiwan. Chinese mainland aspect, the so-called "attack on the platform" is more defensive. Therefore, China and the United States should strengthen communication on this point. This is because the current "Taiwan independence forces" on the island want to take advantage of the strategic competitive situation in Sino-US relations to achieve their goal of further promoting "independence," or substantive "de jure Taiwan independence." Tsai Ing-wen's speech on October 10 was a naked move toward "de jure Taiwan independence."
If the United States expresses its "strategic clarity" under such circumstances, it is equivalent to the US armed intervention in fact supporting "Taiwan independence" and clearly violating the one-China policy. Domestic differences are ultimately reflected in official policies, so the "strategic ambiguity" is still in a dominant position. From the current point of view, based on comprehensive considerations, Biden will still adhere to the traditional "strategic ambiguity" policy of the United States.
However, in the next stage of Sino-US communication, China should find a way to make the United States realize that Tsai Ing-wen's various practices of promoting "Taiwan independence" are harmful to the stability of cross-strait relations, and may also drag the United States into a military conflict between the two sides of the strait, which will pay a very heavy price.
China News Service: It is worth noting that although the United States is still adhering to its position on Taiwan so far, the reports on arms sales to Taiwan and the cooperation between the Taiwan and the UNITED States, as well as the frequent high-level interaction between Taiwan and the United States, show that the United States and Taiwan are strengthening cooperation in all aspects and gradually becoming "clearer." Under this practical action, is it still important to maintain a strategic "ambiguity" in its verbal confrontation with Taiwan?
Director Wang Yong: Although the United States now pays lip service to the one-China policy and is also adhering to this "strategic ambiguity" strategy, a series of US practices are to substantially strengthen its relations with Taiwan. Eventually, it may cause the so-called one-China policy of the United States to "hollow out." Obviously, the impact on China's principle of sovereignty is very large.
If the US side is unable to reach an understanding on this issue between China and the United States, or if the United States goes farther and farther in this regard, then it is possible to further encourage the "Taiwan independence" forces and eventually make the mainland's military intervention an inevitable option and allow China and the United States to "show off militarily" on the Taiwan issue.
What is more noteworthy is that on the Taiwan issue, the us Congress's destructive role in Sino-US relations is also increasing. Although the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States are tit-for-tat and do not give in to each other on all domestic issues, it is becoming more and more obvious that at the expense of China's interests, the situation of violating China's bottom line on the Taiwan issue is aimed at curbing China's peaceful rise and setting up obstacles to China's development.
Under such circumstances, the Taiwan issue can be said to be facing an increasingly large crisis. That is, China's sovereign interests have become victims of US domestic politics and a card for the United States to contain China. Therefore, this issue will not be handled well in the future, and in the short term, the pragmatic cooperation between China and the United States, including the video meeting between the Chinese and AMERICAN heads of state, will be impacted. In the medium and long term, China and the United States may eventually "showdown" around the Taiwan issue, which will greatly affect the regional and international pattern. However, China's determination to oppose independence and promote reunification and safeguard national sovereignty will not change, and its ability will gradually increase.