USAUS STANCE ONTAIWAN/ KEVIN ANDREWS24 Australian Polity
The recent US-China dialogue between PresidentsBiden and Xi produced a flurry of confusinginterpretations by commentators and the media.The BBC, for example, chose both a pro-US and a pro-China stance. The Corporation first headlined its report‘US says opposed to “unilateral effort” to change Taiwan’stating ‘US president Joe Biden had told his Chinesecounterpart Xi Jinping that the US is strongly opposed to“unilateral efforts” to change the status quo or underminepeace across Taiwan.’ A few hours later, the headline waschanged to ‘China warns US about “playing with fire” onTaiwan’ and the story rewritten.The confusion arises partially from the differentunderstandings attached to the words and phrasesused by the respective leaders. The day after the virtualsummit, President Biden said, ‘Taiwan makes its owndecisions’ and that it is ‘independent’, but later assertedthat ‘we are not encouraging independence’ and that USpolicy remains unchanged. ‘We are not going to changeour policy at all,’ said Mr Biden. ‘We are encouraging themto do exactly what the Taiwan [Relations] Act requires.’While the US recognises the People’s Republic of China as‘China’, it does not declare Taiwan as part of China. The PRCinsists that Taiwan is part of the PRC, but Taiwan rejectsthis assertion. In January 2020, Taiwanese PresidentTsai Ing-wen was clear: ‘We are an independent countryalready and we call ourselves the Republic of China,Taiwan.’ The Taiwanese government has not proposedany constitutional change or formal legal declaration ofindependence. In her National Day address President Tsaireiterated four commitments: that Taiwan will adhere toa free and democratic constitutional system; that theRepublic of China and the PRC are not subordinate to eachother; that Taiwan will resist annexation or encroachmentupon its sovereignty; and the Republic’s future must bedecided in accordance with the will of the people.President Biden reflects the continuing US view of hisnation’s ‘one China policy.’ But Beijing assets a ‘one Chinaprinciple’, in the face of 70 years of reality. As former BritishPrime Minister, Tony Blair, said ‘China needs to realisethat Western countries don’t view the self-ruled islandof Taiwan in a similar way to the semi-autonomous cityof Hong Kong. . . . They have to understand that Taiwanis not the same as Hong Kong.’There is a current discussion amongst strategic policywonks about whether the US is moving from a concept of‘strategic ambiguity’ to ‘strategic clarity’ about its stanceon Taiwan. The former describes a position in whichthe US refuses to state if Taiwan has sovereignty andwhether it would use military force to defend the island.The latter involves a declaration of Taiwanese sovereigntyand a preparedness to come to the aid militarily of theRepublic. In between is a notion of ‘strategic denial’ - aposition that the US and its allies will defend Taiwanwithout proclaiming its sovereignty.Recent comments suggest that the West has adoptedthe concept of ‘strategic denial’. When asked at a townhall meeting in October, President Biden said the USwould defend Taiwan against any unilateral attempt tochange the status quo. During the virtual summit, MrBiden reminded President Xi that as a Senator, he hadvoted to support Taiwan’s self-defence. Secretary ofState, Antony Blinken, said recently that allied nationswould be prepared to ‘take action’ if China uses forceagainst Taiwan. More recently, Defence Minister, PeterDutton, said it was ‘inconceivable’ that Australia wouldnot participate in any US military action, prompting theusual bellicose rhetoric from China.The Biden administration has also rejected a list of 16‘erroneous’ US policies towards China. The list, like the14 grievances that China issued against Australia, washanded to Deputy Secretary of State, Wendy R. Sherman,by Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, during a meeting inTianjin in July. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson,Zhou Lijian, told the media the following day that the USmust refrain from criticising Chinese communism, statingthat this was one of three ‘bottom lines’.‘The first is that the US must not challenge, slander oreven attempt to subvert the path and system of socialismwith Chinese characteristics,’ he said. Secondly, the USshould not attempt to disrupt Chinese development.Thirdly, it should not challenge China’s sovereignty orterritorial integrity. This list also contained grievanceslevelled against Australia, including identifying Chinaas the source of Covid-19; criticising its human rightsrecord; and objecting to its actions in Hong Kong. Italso demanded that sanctions and visa restrictions onChinese officials be lifted.Australian Polity 25
Change language