Has Washington changed its tune on Taiwan?

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been relentless in its efforts to supress the Taiwanese independence movement, with Beijing warning against symbolic or material support for Taipei from the international community.

However, these warnings have not been heeded, with the West, particularly the United States, openly condemning threats to Taiwanese sovereignty.

Washington has also continued to supply Taipei with advanced military equipment, supporting the modernisation of the island-democracy’s military.

This has included the US State Department’s recent approval of two separate proposed purchases of AGM-84L-1 Harpoon Block II and AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder missiles to Taiwan for a combined US$440.6 million (AU$649 million).

This has come amid daily incursions of Taiwanese air space, with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) repeatedly breaching the air defence identification zone (ADIZ).

Breaches have involved the deployment of advanced fighter aircraft and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms.

So, have these developments prompted a fundamental shift in the United States’ Taiwan strategy? 

VIEW ALL

President Joe Biden recently told CBS the US would deploy forces to defend Taiwan in the event of an “unprecedented attack”.

This was the latest of several admissions from the 46^th President, however, the White House later denied a change in Washington’s Taiwan posture.

But according to David Sacks, research fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a more telling indication of a shift in US policy was President Biden’s comments on Taiwanese independence.

The President told media, “Taiwan makes their own judgments about their independence … that’s their decision.”

Sacks reflects on the strategies of previous administrations, which had emphatically opposed any push for Taiwan’s formal independence.

“This decades-long, bipartisan non-support for Taiwan independence is rooted in a belief that if Taiwan were to declare independence, it would likely prompt China to use force against the island,” he writes.

Sacks notes Beijing’s 2005 Anti-Secession Law, in which China committed to employing “non-peaceful means and other necessary measures” to curb a push for Taiwanese independence.   

“Most American experts take China at its word, with a recent CSIS survey finding that 77 per cent believe China would immediately invade Taiwan if it declared independence,” he adds.

“Indeed, US officials have long believed that Washington needs to be firm in not supporting Taiwan independence in order to deter Taipei from taking actions that could provoke an attack.”

However, Beijing officials were likely to have interpreted President Biden’s comments as further evidence the United States is “walking away from its one-China policy”.

Sacks continues: “They will view this statement alongside Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s remark that it is ‘up to Taiwan to decide’ whether to declare independence and conclude that there is a coordinated effort underway to shift US policy.

“They will also note former secretary of state Mike Pompeo’s call for the United States to recognise Taiwan as an independent country and former secretary of defence Mark Esper’s recommendation to ditch the one-China policy and see such changes as enjoying bipartisan support.”

Sacks warns China may respond by “ramping up its already heightened pressure campaign” of intimidation against Taiwan.

“This would likely include sending more military aircraft and warships across the median line in the Taiwan Strait, levying additional sanctions on Taiwanese products, further restricting Taiwan’s participation in international organizations, and stripping away some of its remaining diplomatic partners,” he writes.

“Taiwan would find itself less secure as a result.”

Despite these potential ramifications, Sacks welcomes the Biden administration’s “embrace of strategic clarity”, but adds the US should openly rule out support for Taiwan if it were to provoke a conflict with China or “unilaterally” declare independence.

Sacks goes on to stress the Biden administration’s apparent move to a policy of strategic clarity should be consistent with the US one-China policy.

Sacks concludes: “Last and most important, words must be matched with actions if they are to have the intended effect of deterring China and reassuring allies.

“A good deal remains to be done if stability in the Indo-Pacific is to be maintained.”

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia's political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch with This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..