Follow us on social

google cta
2020-10-28t081107z_1862798637_rc2krj9lml0n_rtrmadp_3_usa-asia-sri-lanka-scaled-e1604082288400

Pompeo sets the US up for confrontation with China

Biden should reject the Trump administration’s new actions on US-Taiwan relations.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

The incoming Biden administration should respond with decisiveness and clarity to reject a series of new policies Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced on Saturday affecting U.S. relations with Taiwan. These include: remarks that Taiwan “has not been a part of China,” an unprecedented decision to send U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Kelly Craft to Taiwan, and the apparent nullification of all existing State Department protocols that prohibit certain types and levels of U.S. official and military contacts with Taiwan that suggest movement toward the diplomatic recognition of Taiwan.

These entirely unprecedented actions, when combined with numerous other statements by Vice President Mike Pence focused on delegitimizing the government of the People’s Republic of China, exhibit a clear pattern of behavior by the Trump administration to eviscerate the U.S. One China Policy and add considerable momentum to movement by the United States towards recognizing The Republic of China on Taiwan as an independent sovereign nation, either officially, or in de facto terms. 

More immediately, these eleventh hour actions by the Trump administration, in the larger context of increased overall U.S. hostility toward the People’s Republic of China, are clearly intended to limit the options of the incoming Biden administration in dealing with Taiwan and China, thereby creating the conditions for a Cold War-style confrontation with Beijing that will prove difficult to reverse without expending considerable political capital.

Such actions are dangerous and reckless because they threaten to destroy the foundation of normalized relations with the People’s Republic of China, thereby greatly increasing the chances of conflict with Beijing. This is the case because, at the time of U.S.-China normalization in the 1970s, Beijing agreed to pursue peaceful negotiations with Taiwan toward an eventual settlement of the island’s status as a top priority, in return for an American commitment not to challenge the Chinese position that Taiwan is a part of China. 

While stating that Taiwan’s final legal status remains undetermined, Washington nonetheless signaled clearly at the time of normalization that it would pursue only limited, unofficial ties with Taiwan and affirmed that there could be only one legitimate government for China. Pompeo’s actions thus directly undermine, if not destroy, this American commitment, thereby giving Beijing permission to renege on its own commitment to pursuing a peaceful resolution of the issue as a top priority. 

The Chinese have shown, in recent statements, that they view the stakes involved in Pompeo’s actions in these terms. For the Chinese government, and many Chinese, preventing the permanent separation of Taiwan from mainland China is a vital interest and ultimately a war or peace issue. No one should be unclear about this.

Some might argue that Beijing has already reneged on its side of the above-described understanding by strengthening its military and undertaking provocative actions toward Taiwan that presage a military attack. In reality, while China’s military has certainly grown greatly (from a very low base) since the normalization of U.S.-China relations, Beijing views its specific military deployments regarding Taiwan as deterrence signals against an outright move toward Taiwan independence with U.S. backing. 

Many of these deployments are designed to reduce the U.S. capacity to intervene decisively in a Taiwan conflict, thus presumably increasing hesitancy in both Washington and Taipei to attempt to permanently separate the island from the mainland. These weapons systems could conceivably be used to attack Taiwan, but nothing Chinese leaders have said thus far indicates that they reject their long-standing stress on peace and development as the major conditions of the times, and their preference for a peaceful solution to the Taiwan issue. 

The Chinese have still failed to produce or deploy some weapons systems that would be needed to invade Taiwan. That said, Pompeo’s recent actions could prompt a very strong Chinese action in the near term that could precipitate a serious crisis that fundamentally alters the Chinese calculus and Chinese behavior.

President-elect Biden has stated that he supports the U.S. One China policy, along with the Three Communiques with Beijing and the Taiwan Relations Act. This suggests that he recognizes the stakes involved in maintaining the original understanding regarding Taiwan reached with Beijing at the time of normalization, along with the TRA-based U.S. commitment to provide defensive military equipment to Taiwan. 

It also suggests that he endorses the subsequent protocols enacted to limit U.S.-Taiwan relations. (Although some of these protocols have been modified or lifted at times since normalization for practical reasons, such actions have been limited and undertaken quietly so as not to precipitate a harsh Chinese reaction.) However, given Pompeo’s actions, a mere reiteration of this stance is insufficient to reduce the dangers now confronting the United States regarding the Taiwan issue.

The Biden administration should not only unequivocally reassert its commitment to the foundational understanding of U.S-China relations, but also explain clearly why this understanding, and subsequent U.S. policies designed to uphold it, remain essential to the preservation of peace and stability in Asia and beyond.

Indeed, President Xi Jinping’s apparent impatience regarding the Taiwan issue can be kept at bay indefinitely by a firm and credible continuance and explanation of the value of the U.S. One China policy. Beyond all this, President-elect Biden should also clearly indicate that he recognizes that America’s allies and friends, in Asia and beyond, do not endorse the Trump administration’s recent moves on Taiwan. 

Indeed, they are probably alarmed by them. These nations want stability in the U.S.-China-Taiwan relationship, not efforts to push the envelope to extremes. Finally, Biden should indicate that he is disappointed with the unqualifiedly positive response to Pompeo’s recent actions of the government of Republic of China on Taiwan. That response simply deepens Beijing’s suspicion that Taipei is moving toward formal independence with U.S. backing.

None of the above should preclude the new U.S. administration from pursuing more effective efforts in specific areas to deter or push back against perceived Chinese challenges or threats to U.S. interests, or continued support for Taiwan. But the Biden administration must be clear that these necessary countermeasures do not include an upending of the very basis for workable and peaceful Sino-American relations.   

More broadly, a new report released on Monday by the Quincy Institute argues for a new U.S. East Asia strategy keyed to restraint, inclusiveness, and diplomacy over military dominance and zero-sum competition, and provides the larger context for the kind of restraint regarding Taiwan policy argued herein.  


U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo walks to board an aircraft to leave for Maldives, in Colombo, Sri Lanka October 28, 2020. Eranga Jayawardena/Pool via REUTERS
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi 首相官邸 (Cabinet Public Affairs Office)

Takaichi 101: How to torpedo relations with China in a month

Asia-Pacific

On November 7, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi stated that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could undoubtedly be “a situation that threatens Japan’s survival,” thereby implying that Tokyo could respond by dispatching Self-Defense Forces.

This statement triggered the worst crisis in Sino-Japanese relations in over a decade because it reflected a transformation in Japan’s security policy discourse, defense posture, and U.S.-Japan defense cooperation in recent years. Understanding this transformation requires dissecting the context as well as content of Takaichi’s parliamentary remarks.

keep readingShow less
Starmer, Macron, Merz G7
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Keir Starmer meets Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and António Costa, President of the European Council at the G7 world leaders summit in Kananaskis, June 15, 2025. Picture by Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street

The Europeans pushing the NATO poison pill

Europe

The recent flurry of diplomatic activity surrounding Ukraine has revealed a stark transatlantic divide. While high level American and Ukrainian officials have been negotiating the U.S. peace plan in Geneva, European powers have been scrambling to influence a process from which they risk being sidelined.

While Europe has to be eventually involved in a settlement of the biggest war on its territory after World War II, so far it’s been acting more like a spoiler than a constructive player.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig
Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Saudi leans in hard to get UAE out of Sudan civil war

Middle East

As Saudi Arabia’s powerful crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), swept through Washington last week, the agenda was predictably packed with deals: a trillion-dollar investment pledge, access to advanced F-35 fighter jets, and coveted American AI technology dominated the headlines. Yet tucked within these transactions was a significant development for the civil war in Sudan.

Speaking at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum President Donald Trump said that Sudan “was not on my charts,” viewing the conflict as “just something that was crazy and out of control” until the Saudi leader pressed the issue. “His majesty would like me to do something very powerful having to do with Sudan,” Trump recounted, adding that MBS framed it as an opportunity for greatness.

The crown prince’s intervention highlights a crucial new reality that the path to peace, or continued war, in Sudan now runs even more directly through the escalating rivalry between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The fate of Sudan is being forged in the Gulf, and its future will be decided by which side has more sway in Trump’s White House.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.