- I have to tell you and reiterate
that we are very concerned
by the PRC's provocative military activity near Taiwan.
- Tension certainly is growing between China and Taiwan.
And that in turn is prompting a new debate
about whether the US needs a new policy approach
to prevent China from making a move on Taiwan,
an act that could start a wider war in Asia
and between the US and China, specifically.
- As we've said, the activity is destabilizing.
It risks miscalculation.
And it has the potential
to undermine regional peace and stability.
- China, of course, considers Taiwan a breakaway province
that should be made part of China.
(Jinping speaking foreign language)
That has been China's position for a long time,
though beyond rhetoric, it hasn't taken steps
to actually forcibly swallow up Taiwan.
In the last year or so, though,
and particularly in the last few months,
China has been acting more like a country
that might use its growing
and increasingly sophisticated military
to move on Taiwan and attempt to force it to unify.
China has sent repeated flights of its military aircraft
near Taiwan, including many in areas
Taiwan considers part of its air defense perimeter.
So flights have been growing both larger in number
and more frequent.
There've also been stepped up Chinese naval actions,
and recently satellite photos showed China building up
its three air bases closest to Taiwan.
This obviously concerns Taiwan,
but it's also of direct concern to the US.
In fact, it's caused some analysts to argue
that it's time for the US to abandon
the approach it's taken in addressing Taiwanese concerns.
That approach is called strategic ambiguity.
Strategic ambiguity means that while the US provides
military equipment and some military training to Taiwan,
it's never said explicitly whether it would
or would not come to Taiwan's defense,
if it were attacked by China.
That's been the case for some four decades now.
The rationale behind strategic ambiguity
has been that it creates on the one hand
enough fear in China's mind that an attack on Taiwan
would bring an American military response,
that China will be reluctant to move.
While on the other hand, not giving Taiwan
such a flat assurance America would come to its rescue,
that it does something too bold and reckless
and brings on the very fight the US is trying to avoid.
Now, though, some are arguing
that the time for strategic ambiguity has ended
and that the growing threat from China calls instead
for strategic clarity.
That is, these voices argue, the US should make it clear
that it will come to Taiwan's defense. Why?
Well, the argument goes,
China is a different country now
than it was four decades ago.
It's far stronger militarily
and much more assertive in international affairs.
Moreover, US actions in recent years
in places such as Afghanistan and Syria
raised doubts internationally about whether the US
will stick up for its friends.
Under those circumstances, it's argued,
China might become reckless
and miscalculate American resolve
by thinking it can move on Taiwan without consequence.
And the way to head off such Chinese thinking
is to be clear, not ambiguous.
President Biden caused a diplomatic stir a few days ago
when he suggested at a town hall meeting
that he actually is moving away from strategic ambiguity.
Asked whether the US would come to Taiwan's defense
if it were attacked, he said yes,
there's a commitment to do that.
Later, though, the White House walked back that comment.
- There is no change in our policy.
Our defense relationship with Taiwan is guided
by the Taiwan Relations Act.
- [Gerald] Still, China was quite unhappy
with that Biden comment, which just shows
that moving away from strategic ambiguity
to strategic clarity
would make already tense relations with China even worse.
And some fear Taiwan would think it has
a kind of blank check to be as provocative
with China as it would like.
So put this debate on the growing list of China issues
the Biden administration has to tackle.
(light music)