Illustration: Chen Xia/GT

Editor's Note:  

Since US President Joe Biden inherited the reckless China policy of the previous administration, friction points between China and the US over the Taiwan question have greatly increased. The US is believed to be engaging in a "cognitive warfare" campaign with an attempt to blur the fact that Taiwan is part of China by playing tricks such as supporting its participation in the UN system and claiming the Taiwan Straits are international waters. What's the purpose of the US chipping away at the one-China policy? Will Washington shift from "strategic ambiguity" to "strategic clarity" over Taiwan? These series of interviews seek to find the answer.

In the second piece, Global Times (GT) reporter Yu Jincui talked to Jon R. Taylor (Taylor), professor of political science and department chair of Department of Political Science and Geography, the University of Texas at San Antonio. Taylor believed the Biden administration has continued a process begun under previous US presidents to slowly dilute the meaning of the one China policy. The US will continue to support the Taiwan island in ways that will irritate China, and is taking down a path where the common ground upon which the one-China policy was established and maintained is slowly being lost.

GT: It's widely believed that the US is increasingly taking concrete actions to hollow out the "one China" policy. Why has been this case?

Taylor: We need to start with this: For the past six to seven years, the US has grown increasingly confrontational with China. While the Trump administration was ratcheted-up the rhetoric and backed it up with often belligerent actions, the negative turn in US attitudes toward China began during the last years of the Obama administration. Today, the culmination of this slide is in US polling data, which now shows that a large majority of Americans have a negative view toward China. Sadly, this has also led to the Chinese people now holding decidedly negative views about the US. The moves by the US are a response by politicians "reading the room" regarding the American public's view on China. They don't want to look "weak" on China. And if they do, they'll often be attacked in campaign ads with overheated hyperbole that somehow ties them to China.

GT: The US often accuses China of changing the status quo, but the Taiwan authorities' perception of cross-Straits issues is quite different from what it was when China and the US established diplomatic relations and different from what it was under the Ma Ying-jeou period. The US has elevated its official ties with the Taiwan island and supports Taiwan island's return to the UN system, are those moves changing the status quo of the Taiwan Straits?

Taylor: I would definitely say that the status quo has changed, thanks in large part to Trump. Under Trump, the US deepened ties with Taiwan over Chinese objections. The Trump administration sold more than $18 billion worth of arms to the military and built a $250 million complex for the American Institute in Taiwan. Recall that Trump spoke with Tsai by telephone ahead of his inauguration, which was the highest level of contact between the US and Taiwan since 1979. Trump also sent several senior administration officials, which included a sitting cabinet member, to Taiwan. In the waning weeks of his presidency, Trump's State Department eliminated long-held restrictions governing where and how US officials can meet with their Taiwanese counterparts. But let's not forget that the Biden administration has continued this approach, continuing arms sales and upholding the Trump administration's decision to allow US officials to meet more freely with Taiwanese officials. And Biden even went a step further than Trump by inviting Taiwanese representatives to attend his inauguration. So yes, there have definitely been slow, but steady, changes to the status quo.

GT: There have been voices within the US advocating the country abandon strategic ambiguity and move toward strategic clarity. What's your take on it? 

Taylor: I'd like to think that strategic ambiguity remains in place, particularly since the US has - after some fits and starts - reaffirmed the one-China policy. President Biden needs to look at practical aspects if he were to consider abandoning this policy. Would the American public be willing to go to war with a nuclear power over that country's historic territorial claims? The Taiwan question may be of interest and concern for the US, but it's not the top concern of either US leaders or citizens. Conversely, this is an existential issue for China. I'd be very interested to know when and why the US State Department changed its official statement on US-China relations with regards to Taiwan. It begs the question: has the US dropped its one-China policy and opposition to Taiwan Independence? If so, has anyone in authority in the US offered reasons as to why? It might be rather important to clarify this to China and the world. 

GT: Biden said the US and China need to establish "guardrails" to "manage the competition between China and the US responsibly, avoiding competition sliding into war. But the risks of war in the Taiwan Straits are increasing. More Chinese believe that as the Taiwan question is increasingly taking up more and more China's strategic energy?, short term pain is better than long-term loss and support for a military unification is gradually gaining the upper hand in Chinese public opinion. What do you think about it?

Taylor: The problem with US thinking is that it's convoluted. While there's no problem with encouraging managed competition, let's understand that this requires polite dialogue and mutual respect. On the one hand, we appear to want guardrails and talk a good game of bilateral cooperation. On the other hand, US actions suggest a more antagonistic approach to China. In this environment, it does nothing but encourage increasingly belligerent rhetoric that could justify a war. Sadly, Chinese public opinion is reflecting this troublesome reality as much as American public opinion. I worry that American public opinion is driving thinking about the People's Liberation Army, comparing it to the Russian Armed Forces. Let me dissuade people of this notion: It is not. The US media and certain political opinion leaders tend to provide a dichotomy when it comes to describing China's armed forces. The PLA is either a paper tiger that can't succeed because it hasn't had combat experience in decades or as a behemoth that will take Taiwan in a day, nuke the US Pacific Fleet, and wreak havoc on the global economy for good measure. Perhaps we should see the PLA for what it is - very similar to the US as a modern military with state-of-the-art weapons systems, a cogent military doctrine, and considerable force projection capabilities that can both defend China and protect its strategic interests. Perhaps that should be enough to provide a bracing splash of ice water to the face that will encourage détente and reduce the pugnacious rhetoric.     

GT: The US has repeatedly emphasized its commitments to Taiwan. But as seen from the Afghanistan and Ukraine cases, it seems the US is increasingly difficult to keep its commitments to allies. What message do you think is this sending to Taiwan?

Taylor: The US performance last year in Afghanistan and its decision to not provide combat support of Ukraine in order to avoid involving itself and NATO in a war with Russia risks its strategic credibility. Combined, these actions undermine the US's ability to foster trust with its allies. Which may explain Biden and Taiwan. Biden's repeated statements and assurances that he wants to defend Taiwan by force are meant to reinforce US credibility with Taiwan. The US has long supported Taiwan's self-defense capability with arms sales and a close military relationship. That message of commitment is being repeated as much as possible by the US in order to allay Taiwanese fears that they could be left to fend for themselves to hold off the PLA at the cost of thousands of lives and potentially millions of people displaced.

GT: Is the US Taiwan policy too risky currently? Does it have a brake mechanism?

Taylor: I'd like to think that there is a brake mechanism, but I'm concerned that US policy is currently stuck in a mind-set that's "all gas, no brakes," driven by politicians in a midterm election cycle and public opinion. The Biden administration has continued a process begun under previous US presidents to slowly dilute the meaning of the one-China policy. Emphasizing the Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Assurances, while ignoring the three joint communiqués between China and the US on Taiwan, is taking us down a path where the common ground upon which the one-China policy was established and maintained is slowly being lost. I'm increasingly worried that we're seeing a move away from peaceful coexistence and toward a Cold War mind-set with regards to China. This mind-set is hell-bent on scapegoating China for certain American societal ills and labeling it as an enemy on a variety of venues from academia to health to smart technology to economics. Make no mistake, if the US nullifies the one-China policy, then the establishment of diplomatic relations with China decades ago loses its legal basis.

GT: From 1 to 10, how likely do you think a military conflict between China and the US will break out over the Taiwan question?

Taylor: I'd like to be optimistic and say 1 - very low probability. The realist in me leans toward 4 to 5, which is still moderate. But with so many ships and planes in the region as well as increasingly antagonistic rhetoric, there is more than an outside possibility that conflict could come, due to mistakes, misreading of intentions, misguided threat assessments, misinterpretation of official statements, and even technical glitches or failure. Continuing along this path inches us ever closer to a war that neither nation really wants and the world can ill-afford. 

GT: How will the Taiwan question influence China-US relations in future? 

Taylor: While the Taiwan question is one of the most important issues in China-US relations, it's not the only one. Maintaining a functioning global governance structure, trade and globalization, cybersecurity, and cooperation on fighting terrorism, drug trafficking, human trafficking are also important areas for collaboration. Preserving stable relations requires that the one-China principle must remain in place. Yes, the US will continue to support Taiwan in ways that will irritate China. Conversely, China will do things that assert its sovereignty in the Straits that will irritate the US. Responsible global powers can't let such irritations lead to war. Rather, the irritations should be the basis for frank and respectful dialogue between the two nations. We need a reset in China-US relations as soon as possible.