TAICHUNG (Taiwan News) — As the new Biden administration was taking shape in the U.S., friends of Taiwan were on pins and needles. No one knew for sure if he would continue the strong support for Taiwan that emerged during the Trump administration, or if he would go back to the cautious, tepid support policies that were the hallmark of prior administrations going back to the 1990s.
After nervously watching Senate confirmation hearings and following whatever utterances on Taiwan came out of the mouths of Biden’s appointees, something clear began to appear. The Biden administration had clearly thought out their stance on Taiwan, and it was a whole-of-government approach.
The terminology used by those officials was almost exact in their uniformity: the “rock solid” relationship with Taiwan, and if China invaded, it would be a huge/giant “mistake” were two phrases that stood out. Since then, from the president on down, the top figures in the administration have all been operating from the same playbook.
Superficially, it appears there is one exception, which occurred in this interview with the U.S. television news program 60 minutes conducted by correspondent Scott Pelley. Pelly asked Biden: "What should Chinese President Xi know about your commitment to Taiwan?"
"We agree with what we signed on to a long time ago," the president said. "And that there's one China policy, and Taiwan makes their own judgments about their independence. We are not moving — we're not encouraging their being independent. We're not...that's their decision."
Pelly followed up with: "But would U.S. forces defend the island?"
"Yes, if in fact there was an unprecedented attack," Mr. Biden said.
"So unlike Ukraine, to be clear, sir," Pelley said, "U.S. forces, U.S. men and women would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion?"
"Yes," the president said.
This is the fourth time the president has said something similar and confirmed that the U.S. would intervene militarily to defend Taiwan. In each case, the White House rushed out a statement of “U.S. policy on Taiwan has not changed.”
Biden knows exactly what he is doing
Biden knows exactly what he is doing, including the choreographed rebuttals of policy changes by officials in his administration. Interestingly, in 2001, in the Washington Post, Biden criticized then-President George W. Bush for doing exactly what he himself is doing now, when Bush said he would “do whatever it took” to defend Taiwan, then his administration subsequently walked back the statement.
Biden is well known for his changes in thinking on issues over time, and this is one of them. One thing hasn’t changed, however, and that was his support for the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which he voted for in 1979.
Biden is very knowledgeable about foreign affairs, including Taiwan, from his years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (which he headed for a time) and later as vice president. He’s the biggest foreign policy heavyweight president the U.S. has had since at least George H.W. Bush.
Starting under Trump and now continuing under Biden, the U.S. policy of what the press has dubbed “strategic ambiguity” no longer means what it once did. It is no longer a question of whether the U.S. will get involved militarily. In a previous column, I pointed out that the current version of strategic ambiguity is that the U.S. would intervene militarily to defend Taiwan, for now.
The current ambiguity centers around the words “Taiwan” and “for now.” The U.S. would intervene to defend Taiwan, but would it get involved over the offshore islands, or on islets in the South China Sea?
The “for now” part is also key, as there is no obligation or commitment future presidents will be bound by it. Or is there?
“Words matter, in diplomacy and in law”
The first words in Biden’s Washington Post op-ed criticizing Bush were: “Words matter, in diplomacy and in law.” That is the focus of this column.
On 60 minutes, Biden said: "We agree with what we signed on to a long time ago." In May, speaking to reporters in Japan, he repeatedly referenced commitments to Taiwan, and when asked if the U.S. would defend Taiwan militarily, he said clearly: “Yes. That's the commitment we made."
In October of last year at a CNN town hall, when Biden was asked whether the U.S. would come to the defense of Taiwan if China attacked, he said: “Yes, we have a commitment to do that.”
In August 2021 in an interview on ABC News, Biden explicitly included Taiwan in with treaty allies: “We made a sacred commitment to Article Five that if in fact anyone were to invade or take action against our NATO allies, we would respond. Same with Japan, same with South Korea, same with Taiwan.”
“Words matter, in diplomacy and in law.” So, what is this “commitment” that has been “signed on to”?
What is this mysterious commitment?
No one seems to know. We know what it is not, as Biden himself wrote in that 2001 Washington Post editorial: “The United States has not been obligated to defend Taiwan since we abrogated the 1954 Mutual Defense Treaty signed by President Eisenhower and ratified by the Senate.”
In the same editorial, Biden wrote the following:
The Taiwan Relations Act articulates, as a matter of policy, that any attempt to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means would constitute "a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area" and would be, "of grave concern to the United States."
The act obliges the president to notify Congress in the event of any threat to the security of Taiwan, and stipulates that the president and Congress shall determine, in accordance with constitutional processes, an appropriate response by the United States.
So, if the choice is between an "obligation" and a "policy," what is all the fuss about?
As a matter of diplomacy, there is a huge difference between reserving the right to use force and obligating ourselves, a priori, to come to the defense of Taiwan. The president should not cede to Taiwan, much less to China, the ability automatically to draw us into a war across the Taiwan Strait. Moreover, to make good on the president's pledge, we would almost certainly want to use our bases on Okinawa, Japan.
But there is no evidence the president has consulted with Japan about an explicit and significant expansion of the terms of reference for the U.S.-Japan Security Alliance.
When puzzling over what Biden’s repeated references to this mysterious commitment were, I initially thought perhaps he was viewing the TRA from the perspective of what it implies morally rather than the literal wording. His comments in the part quoted above suggest that isn’t the case.
The other possibility was that there was a secret agreement with Taiwan, or even a “seventh assurance.” Though known publicly for some time, Reagan’s “Six Assurances” to Taiwan in 1982 only recently were declassified.
Secret agreements certainly exist, so this is a legitimate possibility. There is also the possibility of a different secret agreement I initially hadn’t thought of.
Is Japan the hidden factor?
In a private chat with political commentator Michael Turton on Biden’s comments, he asked: “What if the ‘agreement’ is with Japan?” Initially, I was skeptical because of Biden’s specific quote: "We agree with what we signed on to a long time ago."
Japan has had an ambiguous stance on Taiwan for a long time, and it was only very recently that former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe began to very publicly address the issue and push the Japanese government to take action (which I wrote a column about). That definitely didn’t qualify as “a long time ago,” especially to an octagenarian like Biden.
A combination of two things made me reconsider Turton’s question. The first is in the long quote above. Notice Biden’s specific reference to Japan.
The second is I recalled a factoid in my brain I had thought was useless, but suddenly popped back into my head: At the April 2021 Japan-US Leaders’ Summit, the joint statement reiterated ‘the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.’
That was the first time that Taiwan was mentioned in a Japan-US joint leaders’ statement since 1969. The 1960s could certainly be considered “a long time ago,” and Japan probably was quite concerned about the Taiwan Strait then, as Mao’s Cultural Revolution raged in China.
Being at the height of the Cold War, and with Japan a key military ally in the region, it’s possible some agreement was made; not a public one, but one Biden would feel the U.S. must honor.
Taiwan's "undetermined status"
There could also be another wrinkle in this. Twice now Biden has referred to Taiwan independence as something the U.S. doesn’t encourage, but he did say “that's their decision” and “Taiwan makes their own judgments about their independence.”
After World War II, Japan relinquished sovereignty over Taiwan, but neither the Treaty of San Francisco nor the Treaty of Taipei specified to whom sovereignty was to be given. Japan, the U.S., and many other nations deem Taiwan’s sovereignty to be “undetermined.”
Biden has twice brought this subject up, but why? If there is a secret agreement with either Taiwan or Japan, is there some sort of language on the conditions for Taiwan declaring independence?
It seems unlikely, but it’s not totally out of the realm of possibility. Clarity on Taiwan’s sovereignty is largely undetermined because of actions by the U.S. and Japan, and it’s an issue they never resolved.
Ultimately, we don’t know what “commitment” Biden is referring to with any certainty. But I’ll certainly be paying attention to his exact words — because words do indeed matter.
