Strategic confusion: Biden’s fifth Taiwan gaffe baits Beijing, rattles White House

Washington: President Joe Biden has declared that the US would intervene militarily if China attacked Taiwan, only to have the White House walk back his remarks. Which begs the question: was this yet another presidential gaffe or a shift in policy?

During a visit to Japan with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, Biden indicated that he would be prepared to use force to defend the island nation against China - a move that would go considerably further than America’s involvement in Ukraine and appeared to deviate from the traditional strategy used in Washington: to remain ambiguous about such a sensitive issue.

US President Joe Biden, right, and Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in Tokyo on MondayCredit: AP

Not surprisingly, China was deeply unimpressed, suggesting that the US was playing with fire. Some in Washington were also concerned.

“We should be clear about what our policy is,” said China-relations expert Bonnie Glaser, the director of the Asia Program at the German Marshall Fund, a Washington-based think tank.

“When it is not clear, that confusion ends up undermining reassurances to our allies and partners and potentially erodes deterrence in the Taiwan Strait.”

China’s Xi Jinping and the US’s then vice president Joe Biden in 2013.Credit: Getty

Speaking at a joint press conference with Japan’s President Fumio Kishida, a US reporter asked Biden: “You didn’t want to get involved in the Ukraine conflict militarily for obvious reasons. Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?”

“Yes,” he responded. “That’s the commitment we made.”

Then, unprompted, he went even further, saying that the while the US agrees with the One China policy - which acknowledges China’s position that there is only one Chinese government - the idea that Taiwan “could be taken by force is just not appropriate”.

“It will dislocate the entire region and be another action similar to what happened in Ukraine,” the president said. “And so, it’s a burden that is even stronger.”

It wasn’t the first time Biden has commented on defending Taiwan, but it was certainly the most unequivocal he’s been and therefore sensitive on numerous fronts.

First, the remarks represent an apparent shift from the traditional notion of “strategic ambiguity”, a policy designed to minimise the risk of a direct conflict with China, which views Taiwan as part of its territory despite never controlling it.

Secondly, while Biden asserted the US has a “commitment” to come to Taiwan’s defence, the US in fact has no mutual defence pact with the country. Even the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, which is often cited by the administration, commits the US to provide weapons and other support but does not carry an obligation for military intervention if China invades.

And thirdly, the comments pave the way for fresh tensions with Beijing, two months after Biden held a two-hour phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping in which, according to the official read-out, “the President reiterated that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed and emphasised that the United States continues to oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo”.

As expected, China wasted no time expressing its “strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition” to Biden’s latest comments, and warned the US to “be cautious in words and deeds” on the issue.

And at a time when Xi is under growing pressure at home - and in the lead up to the all-important 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party - the concern among some analysts is that instead of Beijing being deterred from acting against Taiwan, it could be provoked.

“If he is backed into a corner, he could feel that his claim to sovereignty over Taiwan is being challenged and that he has to respond,” says Glaser.

“That response could be sending dozens of planes into Taiwan’s air defence identification zone, or it could be an actual kinetic attack, or anything in between. So, this is why I say I would like to see that the deterrence in the Taiwan Strait is strengthened. That requires consistency and a clear statement of policy.”

Clarity and consistency, however, aren’t always the strengths of this administration.

Remember Biden’s historic speech in Poland in March, when he declared, unscripted, that Russian President Vladimir Putin “cannot remain in power”?

A White House official walked back his comments immediately, telling reporters: “The president’s point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbours or the region. He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia or regime change.”

A similar mop-up took place today, with the White House immediately insisting the US official position had not changed - a statement that was later repeated by the Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin.

“As the President said, our policy has not changed. He reiterated our One China policy and our commitment to peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. He also reiterated our commitment under the Taiwan Relations Act to provide Taiwan with the military means to defend itself,” the statement said.

But the latest comments come even after the president made similarly confusing remarks about defending Taiwan from China in August and October, which also had to be “clarified” - and in the context of the lessons learnt by Ukraine, which has now spent three months fighting a bloody war against Russia’s incursion.

So, who is telling the truth about the “official” US position - the President or his advisers?

Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for the weekly What in the World newsletter here.