U.S.-China relations have not improved since 2022 kicked off, and the Taiwan issue is still a long-standing disagreement between Washington and Beijing. Although the Biden administration reiterated that the "one-China policy" of the United States remains unchanged, Chinese officials still accuse the United States of trying to "distort and hollow out the one-China principle." What is the position on unification with China? Does the U.S. emphasize its opposition to the unilateral change of the status quo in the Taiwan Strait to prevent China from reunifying? Is US policy toward Taiwan changing? Is the Biden administration adopting a substantial "one China, one Taiwan" policy?
Assistant Secretary of Defense Ely Ratner began his testimony at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on "Future U.S. Policy toward Taiwan" last month by pointing out that the reason Taiwan's security is so important to the United States is that "Taiwan's security is so important to the United States." Located at an important node of the first island chain, it is the anchor of the US alliance and partner network - this network extends from Japan to the Philippines to the South China Sea. It is very important to regional security and is also important for protecting the United States in the Indo-Pacific region. the key to profit.”
The first island chain node statement is questioned
Ratner's speech attracted a lot of attention from the outside world. A report in the Financial Times on December 28 said that Ratner's statement on the importance of Taiwan to the United States was closely related to Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the commander of the United States in the Far East. MacAthur) said in 1950 that Taiwan is like an "unsinkable aircraft carrier", which is extremely important to the strategic interests of the United States. (node), the anchor for the U.S. network of alliances and partners.”
"People may recall that this was the moment when Washington finally admitted its intentions for Taiwan. In Beijing, at least, the statement was read as the United States had cast aside all pretense that it might accept Taiwan's reunification with China," the report said.
American scholars also questioned Ratner's claims. White House Indo-Pacific coordinator Kurt Campbell was interviewed by former State Department intelligence officer and historian host Alan Campbell during a dialogue at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace last week (January 6). Aaron David Miller asked this very "sensitive" question.
Whether the United States accepts reunification must be clarified
Miller said that Ely Ratner's statement that Taiwan is an important "node" of the first island chain and an important strategic interest of the United States "sounds to me like a commitment that the United States must keep." He asked Campbell, “Are we still abiding by the one-China policy? That is, can we theoretically accept reunification, if it is done in a peaceful way? I mean, while it’s hard for me to imagine that, is that still the case? Our policy?"
Campbell first acknowledged that, as Miller said, "This is a very sensitive element of national policy", but he did not directly answer Miller's questions. He said what he wanted to stress was, "Our position has not changed, it is consistent with previous practices. We are committed to maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. We do have a one-China policy. We support peaceful dialogue and engagement across the Taiwan Strait." We are also committed to working to increase deterrence to ensure that peace and stability are maintained more generally."
Before Campbell, White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan was also asked to clarify the U.S. position on China's reunification with Taiwan.
On December 17, in a dialogue event of the American Council on Foreign Relations, Daniel Russell, who was the former assistant secretary of the State Department for Asia and the Pacific in the Obama administration, asked a question after Sullivan reiterated the consistent policy of the United States committed to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, saying, He was pleased to hear Sullivan confirm that the priority policy of the United States is to maintain the status quo in the Taiwan Strait and ensure that the United States does not face a sudden military situation in the Taiwan Strait, but he asked Sullivan, "Can you clarify that you are not providing reasons that because of With Beijing's increasing strategic competition, is U.S. policy now to prevent unification under any circumstances?"
Oppose the use of force to change the status quo
Russell, who is currently in charge of international security at the Asia Society's Asian Policy Institute, said he knew that a peaceful solution to the Taiwan Strait issue was unlikely today, but "I hope you can show that the U.S. government is not shutting down the possibility of reunification. door, as you would expect China to never seriously consider alternatives."
Sullivan didn't mention the word "unity" throughout his response to Russell's questions. He said Russell was right, and he was grateful for the opportunity to clarify the part, that when he referred to the status quo, he meant that one cannot change the status quo unilaterally or by force. "But no, we're not moving away from the position you just said."
Sullivan continued to reiterate the decades-old U.S. stance on cross-Strait relations, which is based on the one-China policy, the Taiwan Relations Act, the Six Assurances, and three communiqués. "I'm not signaling or implying any meaningful or substantive adjustment to that position, certainly not in the case you're referring to in your question."
Has the Taiwan policy changed?
Paul Heer, a former longtime CIA intelligence officer for Asia, published an article in the National Interest on December 10, questioning Ratner's statement at the hearing, saying he believed Ratner and Daniel Kritenbrink, the State Department's assistant secretary for Asia and the Pacific, who also testified at the hearing, included a "subtle and important shift" in U.S. policy toward Taiwan in their testimony, questioning whether the Biden administration was adopting a "one-for-one" approach. Taiwan" policy.
Hill said Ratner's statement was hard not to interpret as reflecting the judgment that "Taiwan's reunification with the mainland cannot be allowed under any circumstances. If Taiwan is a important 'node' and an important anchor for U.S. security in the region, then it must not fall into Chinese hands", whether that was Ratner's intention or not, but Hill believes that is the message Beijing has received and Beijing will " Recalibrate its strategic plan based on this information."
He said Ratner and Conda's statements were basically "justifying Washington's opposition to even peaceful reunification of Taiwan and the mainland" because they believe Taiwan's autonomy, not controlled by China, is extremely important to U.S. interests and regional security.
Taiwan independence is not a core issue
Hill also pointed out that the United States has maintained that Taiwan's international legal status has been "undetermined" since 1950, and routinely or at least occasionally confirms that the United States "does not support" Taiwan's independence. The core issue, because Taiwan itself has often emphasized that it is already a sovereign and independent country, and there is no reason to take any further action to formally declare independence. Therefore, "the core issue is whether Taiwan can achieve permanent separation from the mainland", and Ratner's statement affects That is, "it provides logic for the United States to support the permanent separation of Taiwan (from China)", and this logic does emphasize that this separation is a strategic necessity for the United States.
Regarding whether the statements of Biden administration officials indicate that the United States has changed its policy toward Taiwan, whether Washington opposes the reunification of Taiwan with China, and whether it is actually adopting the "one China, one Taiwan" policy, the former White House National Security Council China, Taiwan Ryan Hass, the head of Mongolian affairs, told VOA that the most important interest of the United States lies in the peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait.
He Ruien, who is currently a senior researcher at the Center for East Asian Studies at the Brookings Institution, a think tank in Washington, said that since World War II, the enduring interest of the United States has been to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. and consistent policy.”
U.S. one-China policy remains unchanged
James Lin, assistant professor of international relations at the University of Washington (UW), pointed out in an interview with VOA that the United States has always supported peace and stability in East Asia. Since the 1950s, this has always meant that the United States is maintaining a delicate status quo. "On the one hand, it supports Taiwan, and on the other hand, it adopts a reassuring attitude towards Beijing's political goals." However, he said that the United States still maintains a "one China" policy.
"I think the Biden administration is still operating under America's one-China policy, which 'acknowledges' Beijing's claim to Taiwan," he said. "In practice, this policy has been clarified and adjusted slightly over the years. process, such as through the 'Six Guarantees'."
Regarding Ratner's remarks at the hearing, which were interpreted by some as the U.S. wishing for a permanent separation of Taiwan and China because it was more in U.S. interests, Lin Yuxiang said that for most of the period from 1950 to the present, "the U.S. officially supported permanent Separation is unacceptable to Beijing and could destabilize the region, as it still does today. I don’t think the U.S. will unilaterally change this stance because of the potential risks it poses to regional instability.”
Biden's policy is not "one China, one Taiwan"
In addition, some people believe that Biden's continuation of the Trump administration's policy, escalating official contacts with Taiwan, and speaking out for Taiwan's international participation shows that the United States is actually adopting a "one China, one Taiwan" policy. Lin Yuxiang disagrees with this view. .
"The 'one China, one Taiwan' policy would in practice represent more significant changes to the status quo, such as support for changing Taiwan's international status to 'Republic of Taiwan' instead of 'Republic of China', but that's not happening right now," he said. Case."
Lin Yuxiang believes that the Biden administration's recent approach to Taiwan, including increased diplomatic contacts and more open support for Taiwan, are relatively minor changes, and the United States has not treated Taiwan like other countries. "Biden's policy is not about overtly forcing Beijing into a position that is difficult to maintain under a 'one China, one Taiwan' policy," he said.
James Lee, a postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Global Conflict and Collaboration at the University of California, San Diego, also does not think Biden is pursuing a "one China, one Taiwan" policy.
"I don't think the Biden administration is seeking a 'one China, one Taiwan' policy," he told VOA. "What the Biden administration is doing is trying to accommodate the growing tensions in the Taiwan Strait with a 'one China' policy. Having said that, I think there is still confusion over what the boundaries of this policy are, and the Biden administration's approach to finding and defining those boundaries creates a misunderstanding that the US is now supporting a 'one China, one Taiwan' policy."
Like a referee being neutral on sovereignty issues
On the issue of Taiwan's sovereignty, James Lee said that the United States remains neutral on the substantive content of sovereignty, and it neither supports nor opposes reunification or independence, but "the United States is not neutral about the process: it opposes unilateral changes on either side of the Taiwan Strait. status quo."
He said the U.S. has taken a more decisive stance on the Taiwan issue in recent years because Washington has been worried that the People's Republic of China may try to unilaterally change the status quo, "but that does not mean that the United States has defined a preference for unity or independence. Position. America is like a referee: it's there to enforce the rules of the game, not there to move the ball in any one particular direction."
The reunification process must be peaceful and supported by the people of Taiwan
James Lee further explained that when it is mentioned that the United States "does not support" Taiwan's independence, it means that the United States remains neutral and does not take a stand on the issue of sovereignty, "because 'not support' is located between 'opposition' and 'support'. Between the extremes, the U.S. position on the reunification of the People's Republic of China and Taiwan is that it must have the support of the Taiwanese people: if the Taiwanese people support reunification, the U.S. will not oppose it; but if the Taiwanese people do not support reunification, the U.S. will oppose it. force or coercion to force the people of Taiwan to accept Beijing's unification terms."
Lin Yuxiang of the University of Washington also believes that the US position on Taiwan is to support the peaceful resolution of differences in the Taiwan Strait, "this is the goal of the US strategic ambiguous policy", which is detailed in Article 2b of the Taiwan Relations Act passed by the US Congress in 1979. That is, the United States believes that "any decision to determine Taiwan's future in a non-peaceful manner is a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific region, and it is also a serious concern of the United States."
"Historically, prior to 1979, this preserved the possibility of peaceful reunification between Taiwan, then known as the Republic of China, and the People's Republic of China, and the United States would accept that possibility. But social trends in Taiwan today show that, Reunification is extremely unpopular, that possibility is no longer realistic, and I think all parties understand that."
Taiwanese people disagree on reunification
Because of Taiwan's divided opinion, Lin said, "any 'unification' seems more likely to be unilateral from the People's Republic of China, so it is non-peaceful and becomes more problematic for the United States."
Although U.S. officials have repeatedly reiterated that the one-China policy has not changed, the Beijing authorities still accuse the U.S. of trying to "conquer China with Taiwan" and of "emptying," "virtualizing," and "distorting" China's "one-China principle."
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in an interview with Xinhua News Agency and other official media on December 30 that the United States violated its commitment to establishing diplomatic relations, "condoned and encouraged 'Taiwan independence' forces, and tried to distort and hollow out the one-China principle." The United States itself will face an unbearable price if it is brought into a dangerous situation.
Wang Yi also said that China's reunification is an irresistible trend. "Taiwan has no other way out than reunification with the mainland.