Biden’s recent statement that the US will defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion has caused government leaders and scholars alike to question a US policy shift. During his Asia Tour, Biden spoke at a conference in Tokyo, where he was asked about the US defense policy regarding Taiwan. In an unlikely response, Biden warned that China was “flirting with danger” over Taiwan and vowed to intervene militarily if need be. Although the White House insists that there has been no departure from previously existing US policy, this is the second time in recent months that Biden has promised military defense to Taiwan. 

During his speech, Biden expressed that the notion that Taiwan “can be taken by force… is just not appropriate. It will dislocate the entire region and be another action similar to what happened in Ukraine”. By drawing parallels between the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the possibility of a Chinese attack on Taiwan, Biden prompted a strong rebuttal from Beijing. According to BBC, Beijing’s foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin responded by saying, “The Taiwan question and the Ukraine issue are fundamentally different. To compare those two is absurd. We once again urge the US to abide by the One China principle.”

It is important to recognize what Taiwan represents in the larger discussion of international peace and security. Currently, Taiwan has its own constitution, democratically elected officials, and armed military. By many standards, this would define Taiwan as an autonomous state that should be guaranteed sovereignty– but China disagrees. In a statement provided by BBC, Wenbin insisted that “Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory… there’s no room for compromise or concession”. As seen through its operations in the South China Sea and with its Belt and Road Initiative, China’s foreign policy is becoming increasingly expansionist. Though most states don’t recognize Taiwan, an invasion of its territory would be an alarming example of China’s growing power. At the same time, the US and other states are bound, at least in some ways, by China as an economic and political superpower. Though Biden’s remarks appear to some as a brave stance against Chinese aggression, there is a reason why the US State Department immediately started backtracking his comments. In other words, the US-Sino relationship is equal parts codependent and fragile.

Although China and Taiwan have been divided since a civil war in the 1940s, China has been persistent as to its intentions in regaining its lost territory. In the meantime, it has developed a “China One” policy, which essentially prohibits allies from taking sides with Taiwan. Currently, the US maintains diplomatic ties with China and thus acknowledges that there is only one Chinese government. As part of its Taiwan Relations Act, which aims to enable Taiwan to defend itself, the US sells arms to the territory. The official US position on Taiwan is one of “strategic ambiguity,” and its vague nature continues to keep China guessing. However, recently there have been increased accounts of Chinese warplanes crossing into Taiwan’s self-declared air defense zone. This, combined with the ongoing war in Ukraine, has clearly caused Biden to warn China of any aggressive actions it may want to take. 

With respect to the future implications of Biden’s newfound commitments to Taiwan, one must consider the benefits and risks of a policy shift. In the last few months, there has been a louder international call, for instance, from Japan, for the US to take a stronger stance against Beijing. By the same token, US policymakers are concerned about the future of Taiwan, as its independence– or lack thereof– is an indicator of Chinese aggression and expansionist foreign policy. On the other hand, some experts and leaders fear that outwardly opposing Beijing via pledges to Taiwan could provoke China and actually speed up any existing plans to retake the territory. Nonetheless, if the US plans to change its official policy, it should be done through strategic and diplomatic conversations with Chinese leaders to clarify intentions.