Speaking at the World Economic Forum in a rare springtime version of Davos, veteran US diplomat Henry Kissinger said: “A direct confrontation should be avoided and Taiwan cannot be the core of the negotiations, because it is between China and the United States”.

Kissinger stressed that the United States should not develop something of a ‘two-China’ solution, by any gradual process, so that China will continue to exercise the patience that has been exercised up until now. He added that Washington and Beijing must seek to avoid putting Taiwan at the center of their tense diplomatic relationship, adding that the need for the world’s two largest economies to avoid direct confrontation is in the interest of global peace.

His comments come shortly after President Joe Biden, at a joint news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, said that the US would be prepared to intervene militarily if China invaded the self-governed island.

Biden’s remarks during his Asian trip

During his first trip to Asia as a president, Biden warns that the US would defend Taiwan militarily in case of an attack by China, drawing a direct comparison to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He added: “We agree with the ‘One China’ policy”, but the idea that Taiwan can be taken by force, is not appropriate. It would dislocate the entire region and be another action similar to what happened in Ukraine.

Biden’s remarks appeared to mark a break in Washington’s deliberate and long-held tradition of “strategic ambiguity” over Taiwan. The White House quickly sought to downplay the comments, saying they do not reflect a change in policy. The White House officials said that Biden’s comments simply repeated a decision made through a 1979 law that the United States would provide Taiwan with the military means for self-defense.

Biden has also previously made similar comments, before his assistants walk them back. But in the current situation, during a presidential visit to Seoul and Tokyo and the West’s urgent confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, the words had a more powerful meaning and provoked reactions by various countries in the region.

Asian Reactions

Taiwanese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Joanne Ou said that her agency “sincerely welcomed” Biden’s comments, but the Chinese ministry’s spokesman Wang Wenbin expressed his government’s “strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition” to them. Beijing claims Taiwan is an inalienable part of its territory. “No one should underestimate the strong determination, firm will and formidable ability of the Chinese people”, Wang said at a regular press briefing, according to the state-run Global Times.

The joint air force patrols, for about 13 hours in the skies, above the Sea of ​​Japan and the East China Sea, executed by the Chinese and the Russian air force is accurate proof of the mutual support and the strategic coordination at all levels. Moreover, this event conveys a clear political message to the whole world. 

The partnership of the United States with India, Japan and Australia, which is reinforced by US participation in the summit of the Quad, is meant in a way to counter China’s global power. The outlines of a new trade framework announced by the Biden administration, which is meant to strengthen US economic ties with Indo-Pacific nations other than China. 

The four Quad nations share security and economic interests, but the grouping exists for reasons that mirror the purpose of Biden’s first Asia trip as president: to counter China’s growing military and economic power.

Conclusion

Many questions could be imposed in the current situation: 

Do these comments reflect the real policy of the United States towards Taiwan and against China?

Do these comments match the strategic goal which aims to defend Taiwan and prevent China from invading the island by force?

Does this strategy serve the national interest of the United States and the interest of its allies and partners in the region and in the world?

The policy of strategic ambiguity toward Taiwan has long been maintained by the United States, meaning it is intentionally unclear what it would do if it comes to defending Taiwan. The “one China” policy is a long-standing time of diplomatic pace under which the United States recognizes China’s position that there is only one Chinese government, without accepting Beijing’s view that Taiwan is under its rightful control.

China’s Foreign Ministry’s direct reaction was by expressing “strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition” to the remarks. Under the “one China” policy, a cornerstone of diplomatic relations between Washington and Beijing, the US diplomatically acknowledges China’s position that there is only one Chinese government. China claims Taiwan as part of its own territory and has been putting pressure on the island to accept its rule. As a matter of fact, Taiwan is at the doorstep of China (100 miles =161 kilometers), while the distance from the United States to Taiwan is 12,261 kilometers (7,619 miles).

The US maintains a strong unofficial relationship with Taiwan, and Washington supplies military equipment to the island in accordance with the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, which does not require the US to intervene militarily to defend Taiwan if China invades, but makes it a policy to ensure the island has the resources to defend itself and to prevent Beijing from unilaterally unifying the island.

The unbelievable international tension after the framework of war in Ukraine, the global alignments, and the mutual mobilization associated with this war convey a great possibility of a confrontation between China and the United States.

Beijing did not agree with Washington’s efforts to expand political and economic pressure on Russia, in order to terminate its military operation in Ukraine. China was, somehow, a great supporter of Russia, and at the same time the biggest obstacle to the US economic strategy plan against Russia.

Both China and the US are the two main members out of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) (besides the Russian Federation, France, and the United Kingdom). Every member has the right to the negative vote (Veto) which could cancel any UNSC decision. They are superpowers having great military (including weapons of mass destruction, WMD) and economic capabilities that could start a new global war (WW III).

Finally, the international society and the United Nations organization precisely, are responsible for keeping peace, security and stability in the world, by avoiding any military clash which may lead to war. They should be directly involved more and more in the peacekeeping process by taking all measures and procedures to find a political solution to any conflict between any two or more nations or parties. All problems should be solved by direct negotiations seeking peace and consequently saving lives.

It is necessary and sufficient to avoid committing any critical or historical mistakes against human rights and citizens of all nations in general. The international society must always strive to find solutions, and Intensify all efforts, taking into account the legitimate national interests of all parties in concern; China, US, and Taiwan.