ItIf you are looking for clues as to when Presidents go off-message look at his staff. And Joe Biden’s national security advisers were all fidgets and carpet-stares when their boss stated Monday that his government would defend Taiwan in the event of aggression from Beijing, which considers the self-ruling island its sovereign territory. Since 1979, the cornerstone of U.S.-China relations has been the One China policy—under which Washington acknowledges Beijing’s claim over Taiwan while not endorsing it.
The U.S. President was in Tokyo alongside Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida ahead of a meeting of the Quad security pact, a strategic dialogue between leading Asia-Pacific democracies—the U.S., Australia, India and Japan. Biden was asked by a reporter whether he was willing to get militarily involved if China invaded Taiwan—and said yes.
“America is committed to a one-China policy but that does not mean China has the jurisdiction to use force to take Taiwan,” Biden said. He added that U.S. resolve to defend Taiwan was “even stronger” after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24.
Learn More The U.S. Risks Catastrophe If It Doesn’t Clarify Its Taiwan Strategy
Of course, it always seemed unsatisfactory that official U.S. policy toward one of Asia’s most combustible geopolitical hotspots was “strategic ambiguity.” The U.S. currently recognizes only one Chinese government and does not have formal diplomatic relations with Taipei. Unofficial relations remain, with a de facto Embassy and troops stationed in Taiwan. The U.S. is required by Congress to supply Taiwan with the weapons it requires for its self-defense. Whether the U.S. would send troops to defend the island’s 23 million inhabitants in the event of conflict has never been confirmed.
Biden’s comments in Tokyo could appear to be a shift towards “strategic clarity,” though clarity doesn’t necessarily translate to security for Taiwan. In any case, Beijing is furious with Biden’s remarks. Foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said the Taiwan issue was “a purely internal affair” and “on issues touching on China’s core interests of sovereignty and territorial integrity, China has no room for compromise or concession.”
After the Chinese Civil War in 1949, Taiwan was split from China politically. The Nationalists of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek were defeated and fled Taiwan. However, relations have improved in the last three decades despite not having a formal peace agreement. Business ties flourished.
Victor Gao, an international relations expert in Beijing and former translator to reformist mainland leader Deng Xiaoping, says that Biden’s words risk reigniting that frozen conflict.
“If the United States says it wants to defend Taiwan… then China will abrogate diplomatic relations with the U.S. to start with, and then China will engage in this unfinished Civil War,” Gao tells TIME. “And eventually, after the war is over, the United States will need to kneel down on the ground to beg for re-recognition by the People’s Republic [of China].”
Strategic Ambiguity: The End?
Histrionics aside, which side would prevail in a hot conflict is a matter of some contention, though Washington risks losing the moral high ground if Beijing can justifiably claim that the U.S. unilaterally altered the status quo, says Oriana Skylar Mastro, a fellow at Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and non-resident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “There’s a lot of countries in the region that would think that the United States unnecessarily provoked some sort of conflict,” she says.
White House officials have already begun walking back any inference that Biden’s remarks reflect a change in U.S. policy, just as they did when Biden made similar comments in August and October. Jake Sullivan, National Security Advisor has stated repeatedly that strategic ambiguity is the best option. These alleged gaffes are often repeated, raising the possibility that they may be a strategy to increase deterrence messages while also avoiding overt policy changes.
Wen-Ti Sung, a political scientist based in Taiwan for the Australian National University, says that Biden’s comments could be a smart ploy to reveal to other countries the shifting underlying sentiment and strategic calculus in the U.S. undergirding its Taiwan and China policies.
“It preserves plausible deniability while increasing deterrence,” he says. “As it signals a change in the likely U.S. substantive policy response in cross-Strait contingency without openly changing the U.S. declared policy of strategic ambiguity.”
Biden’s comments also provide a morale boost to Taiwan, where faith in the U.S. has been shaken by the president’s refusal to send troops to Ukraine. Recent polling reveals that half the islanders don’t believe the U.S. would come to their aid if China attacked. Sung also said that the island was feeling abandoned after hearing reports it had been left out the first phase of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. This is a new grouping of regional traders proposed by the White House.
It’s not exactly unheard of for Biden to find himself in a verbal tangle at the podium. Still, the frequency of his statements in support of Taiwan—combined with the fact that in Japan he answered a direct question on defending the island with an unambiguous “yes”—doesn’t leave his personal feelings in much doubt, regardless of official U.S. policy.
Biden’s assertiveness on the matter also sets an uncompromising tone before the Quad summit with the leaders of India, Japan and Australia. Australia’s new Labour government has elected its China policy. While Japan is becoming more confident, it still requires coaxing in order to continue its involvement in Indo-Pacific security.
“The bottom line is if Japan fights [alongside] the United States, we win every single time against China,” says Mastro. “That solves all our operational problems. [However,] Japan is never going to fight a high intensity conflict alongside the United States in defense of Taiwan.”
Of course, a fierce reaction from Beijing towards the Quad could prompt Japan’s defensive posture to change. But given the stakes of a hot war between the nuclear powers, it’s a conflict all sides will be desperate to avoid. An American victory would result in a quick and minimal death toll. This is because of the devastating effects on global supply chains.
However, rhetoric continues to heat up. Some Chinese policymakers have started referring to the Quad as “Asian NATO.” Quoted by China’s state news wire Xinhua, Foreign Minister Wang Yi said Tuesday’s Quad meeting was an attempt by Washington “to form small cliques in the name of freedom and openness” in order to “contain China.”
“The so-called Indo-Pacific Strategy is, in essence, a strategy of creating division, inciting confrontation and undermining peace,” he said. “No matter how it is packaged or disguised, it will inevitably fail in the end.”
Read More From Time