US position on Taiwan hasn’t changed, despite promise to defend it, administration says

.

The Biden administration now insists the U.S. position on Taiwan, which for decades has been one of so-called “strategic ambiguity,” has not changed, despite President Joe Biden vowing that the United States would respond to a Chinese attack on the island similarly to how it has promised to defend NATO allies.

During an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, Biden had promised the U.S. would “respond” to any possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan, pushing back on criticism from Chinese media that the Afghanistan debacle should make the island of Taiwan question whether the U.S. would protect it or abandon it.

AFGHANISTAN DEBACLE IS BIDEN’S SECOND SAIGON MOMENT


“Our policy with regard to Taiwan has not changed,” a senior administration official told the Washington Examiner. “The U.S. defense relationship with Taiwan is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, as it has been for the past 40 years, and is based on an assessment of Taiwan’s defense needs and the threat posed by the PRC. We continue to have an abiding interest in peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, and we consider this central to the security and stability of the broader Indo-Pacific region.”

Biden directly compared the U.S. commitment to Taiwan to the commitment the U.S. has made to its NATO allies and other allies in the Pacific. Stephanopoulos said that China was already telling Taiwan, “See? You can’t count on the Americans.”

Biden responded: “Why wouldn’t China say that? Look, George, the idea that we — there’s a fundamental difference between Taiwan, South Korea, NATO. We are in a situation where they are in — entities we’ve made agreements with based on not a civil war they’re having on that island or in South Korea, but on an agreement where they have a unity government that, in fact, is trying to keep bad guys from doin’ bad things to them.”

Biden argued: “We have made — kept every commitment. We made a sacred commitment to Article V that if, in fact, anyone were to invade or take action against our NATO allies, we would respond. Same with Japan, same with South Korea, same with Taiwan. It’s not even comparable to talk about that. … It’s not comparable.”

Taiwan, known as the Republic of China, is an independent democratic island nation off the coast of mainland China. The Chinese Communist Party has long sought to bring the territory under its control, while Taiwan is self-governed and receives U.S. defense support, despite not being formally recognized. U.S. relations with Taiwan became unofficial in 1979 after the U.S. agreed to establish diplomatic relations with the Chinese Communist Party-ruled Chinese mainland. The U.S. follows what is referred to as a policy of “strategic ambiguity” on the issue of whether it would use U.S. military might to protect the island of Taiwan if Beijing attacks or invades.

Chinese state media quickly began exploiting the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan to push propaganda aimed at Taiwan, questioning America’s commitment there. One example from the state-run Global Times asked, “Washington just left despite the worsening situation in Kabul. Is this some kind of omen of Taiwan’s future fate?”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 states that it is the policy of the U.S. “to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character,” but it does not include a mutual defense agreement, reading that America’s stance was also “to make clear that the United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means” and “to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.”

NATO’s North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 includes an “Article V” mutual defense guarantee that “an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all” and the allies agree to “assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith … such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

Related Content

Related Content