Follow us on social

google cta
The best course for Biden is to help Taiwan help itself

The best course for Biden is to help Taiwan help itself

The Trump's administration has left the new White House at a crossroads: keep poking Beijing or bring balance back to the situation.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

The United States has been making serious moves toward upending a balance between its support of Taiwan and its fragile relations with China — and it could lead to places Washington is not necessarily prepared to go.

In his last days in office, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced “self-imposed” limitations on diplomatic contact with Taiwan were null and void, allowing for deeper and more direct communication between American and Taiwanese officials. This decision was the culmination of the Trump administration’s abandonment of a decades’ long balance with China, a status quo that was first breached when Donald Trump received a congratulatory call from Taiwan’s president Tsai Ing-wen after the 2016 election. The phone call marked the first contact between a leader of Taiwan and an incoming U.S. president in almost 40 years. 

In those four years, the administration effectively abandoned the “One China” policy, the recognition since 1979 that the communist People’s Republic of China (PRC) is the official Chinese government, rather than the Republic of China (ROC), Taiwan’s official name — and that there is only one sovereign state of “China,” an implicit repudiation of Taiwanese independence.

Right now, Biden has two paths: reverse course and ratchet down the Trump administration’s new policy toward Taiwan, or continue in his predecessor’s path by implicitly promoting Taipei’s independence and engaging in deeper bilateral relations with the ROC. The former option, while potentially politically troublesome for Biden, could deescalate U.S.-China tensions. The latter, while scoring Biden political points at home, especially with China hawks, would certainly intensify the growing rift between Washington and Beijing, leading the United States down a dangerous path that could end in war with a nuclear power.

Should Biden choose to further ties with Taipei, he’ll be praised for supporting democracy and self-determination and standing up to the communist regime in Beijing. It’s clear from the recent cabinet confirmation hearings that both Congress and the new administration favors a tough stance on China. However, Beijing will respond with increased animosity toward both Taipei and Washington. Chinese sanctions on U.S. officials over “nasty behavior” on the Taiwan issue are just the latest in a series of back-and-forth sanctions between Washington and Beijing. Trump’s tariffs throughout his presidency set off a trade war that hurt both the American and Chinese economies. 

On the military side, the PRC and Taiwan have both increased military exercises in the region, and the United States has started training Taiwanese military forces for the first time since 1979 (the U.S. military denied those reports back in November).

Most recently, China sent warplanes into the Taiwan Strait, to which Biden’s new State Department responded by reaffirming its support for Taiwan. 

If this pattern of escalation did lead to a Chinese invasion, the United States cannot expect it would win in a war over Taiwan. War game simulations conducted by officials from the Pentagon and the RAND Corporation show the United States losing in such a situation, and quite badly, according to David A. Ochmanek, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for force development and current defense analyst at Rand. “It's had its ass handed to it for years,” he said, of the American side. Ochmanek revealed that for years, the U.S. team “has been in shock because they didn't realize how badly off they were in a confrontation with China.”

The best option for the American people is for the Biden administration to reaffirm strategic ambiguity toward Taiwan. If Biden chooses this course, a bipartisan attack from China hawks may ensue, accusing Biden of weakness on the issue and appeasement of the authoritarian PRC regime. This backlash would be especially strong given increasing American outrage over mass arrests in Hong Kong, and the recent U.S. declaration of Chinese actions against Uyghurs as genocide. Many might call for a stronger pledge to Taiwan to signal America’s commitment to protecting civil society and human rights, and to express an overall dissatisfaction with the PRC. Nevertheless, Biden has to play the long game here. 

The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act requires America to sell Taiwan defensive weapons and to consider any measures to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means “a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific.” Washington should continue to sell defensive arms to Taipei — something Beijing won’t like, but won’t fundamentally undermine U.S.-China relations. The United States should also encourage Taiwan to build up its own defenses to deter and protect against Chinese aggression. 

At the same time, Washington should maintain its longstanding recognition of the “One China” policy and avoid any actions that might suggest the United States would take an explicit stance on Taiwanese sovereignty, especially given the uncertainty of whether the United States could decisively defeat a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. 


Jinhua exercise at the Port of Taipei on June 29, 2011 in Bali, Taipei, Taiwan. (Shutterstock/ Carlos Huang)|The 2011 Jinhua exercise at the Port of Taipei on June 29,2011 in Bali,Taipei,Taiwan. (Shutterstock/Carlos Huang)
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
G7 Summit
Top photo credit: May 21, 2023, Hiroshima, Hiroshima, Japan: (From R to L) Comoros' President Azali Assoumani, World Trade Organization (WTO) Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the G7 summit in Hiroshima, Japan. (Credit Image: © POOL via ZUMA Press Wire)

Middle Powers are setting the table so they won't be 'on the menu'

Asia-Pacific

The global order was already fragmenting before Donald Trump returned to the White House. But the upended “rules” of global economic and foreign policies have now reached a point of no return.

What has changed is not direction, but speed. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s remarks in Davos last month — “Middle powers must act together, because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu” — captured the consequences of not acting quickly. And Carney is not alone in those fears.

keep readingShow less
Vice President JD Vance Azerbaijan Armenia
U.S. Vice President JD Vance gets out of a car before boarding Air Force Two upon departure for Azerbaijan, at Zvartnots International Airport in Yerevan, Armenia, February 10, 2026. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/Pool

VP Vance’s timely TRIPP to the South Caucasus

Washington Politics

Vice President JD Vance’s regional tour to Armenia and Azerbaijan this week — the highest level visit by an American official to the South Caucasus since Vice President Joe Biden went to Georgia in 2009 — demonstrates that Washington is not ignoring Yerevan and Baku and is taking an active role in their normalization process.

Vance’s stop in Armenia included an announcement that Yerevan has procured $11 million in U.S. defense systems — a first — in particular Shield AI’s V-BAT, an ISR unmanned aircraft system. It was also announced that the second stage of a groundbreaking AI supercomputer project led by Firebird, a U.S.-based AI cloud and infrastructure company, would commence after having secured American licensing for the sale and delivery of an additional 41,000 NVIDIA GB300 graphics processing units.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Monitors at the United Nations General Assembly hall display the results of a vote on a resolution condemning the annexation of parts of Ukraine by Russia, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, New York, U.S., October 12, 2022. REUTERS/David 'Dee' Delgado||

We're burying the rules based order. But what's next?

Global Crises

In a Davos speech widely praised for its intellectual rigor and willingness to confront established truths, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney finally laid the fiction of the “rules-based international order” to rest.

The “rules-based order” — or RBIO — was never a neutral description of the post-World War II system of international law and multilateral institutions. Rather, it was a discourse born out of insecurity over the West’s decline and unwillingness to share power. Aimed at preserving the power structures of the past by shaping the norms and standards of the future, the RBIO was invariably something that needed to be “defended” against those who were accused of opposing it, rather than an inclusive system that governed relations between all states.

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.