Drums of war: Can the US handle conflict with China while Ukraine and Israel burn? 

The simultaneous wars in Europe and the Mideast have already challenged the attention and resources of the West.  

Increasing tensions with China over Taiwan, and now over a territorial dispute with a U.S. treaty ally, the Philippines, in the South China Sea, have raised concerns that a new conflict could erupt in the Indo-Pacific. 

Members of Congress are pressing the Biden administration to make unpalatable choices regarding which conflicts should be prioritized over others. Some conservative Republicans oppose sending more weapons and munitions for Ukraine’s efforts to defeat Russia’s aggression. Progressive Democrats object to the Biden administration’s avid support for Israel against Iran-sponsored Hamas. 

But there is widespread concern in both parties over the growing possibility of military confrontation with China.  

Last week, in an article titled, “This is what America is getting wrong about China and Taiwan,” Oriana Skylar Mastro offered views influenced by recent discussions in Beijing with government officials and Chinese academics. 

“To be clear, it was China that began rocking the boat first. Since 2016, when Tsai Ing-wen of the independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party was elected president of Taiwan (succeeding a more China-friendly administration), Xi Jinping has repeatedly brandished China’s military power with large-scale military exercises and other pressure tactics apparently meant to discourage independence sentiment on Taiwan.” 

But that history is incomplete. China’s aggressive designs on Taiwan long predated Tsai’s 2016 election. In the Taiwan Strait Crises of 1952 and 1958, Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek vied over Taiwan as the last battle of China’s civil war.  

Even as President Richard Nixon’s historic 1972 opening welcomed China into “the family of nations,” Beijing insisted it would eventually take Taiwan. Nixon signed the Shanghai Communique in which the U.S. “reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.”  

The two sides repeated their positions in two subsequent communiques, when Jimmy Carter switched diplomatic relations in 1979 and when Ronald Reagan agreed in 1983 to limit arms sales to Taiwan consistent with China’s commitment to “a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question.”  

The article fails to mention the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, which stated that America’s decision “to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means [and] to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.” 

Far from being a recent development in response to a new U.S. policy, China’s aggression toward Taiwan was demonstrated again in 1995 and 1996 when it closed the Taiwan Strait to air and maritime commerce by conducting war games and firing missiles toward Taiwan. 

Unfortunately, when Chinese officials asked what America would do if China attacked Taiwan, the Clinton administration’s representative, Joseph Nye, did not invoke the TRA, which mandates that the U.S. “maintain the capacity” to defend Taiwan. He said instead, “We don’t know … it would depend on the circumstances.  

That was the articulation of the strategic ambiguity that has characterized U.S. policy on defending Taiwan. Last month, Nye attended the same conference Mastro cited and coined a new strategic concept: that American power should be exercised “with,” not “over,” others.  

It is also inaccurate to assert that China’s military pressure on Taiwan is simply a response to Taiwan’s aspiration for ultimate independence — rather, its purpose is to compel Taiwan’s acceptance of Chinese communist rule now. 

Beijing codified its intentions in the 2005 Anti-Secession Law (ASL), which states: “[S]hould possibilities for a peaceful reunification be completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures” to compel it. 

Despite the measures proposed to “assure” China, Beijing has made clear that subjugation of Taiwan is its nonnegotiable objective. The only outcome it fears more than an independent Taiwan is a major war with the United States. It should be made to understand that an attack on Taiwan would inevitably mean war with America. An official public declaration is the only credible way to achieve that deterrent result. 

The Biden administration should offer this deal to China. Beijing will officially rescind the ASL and/or formally renounce the use of force or coercion against Taiwan. Washington will continue to withhold its support for formal Taiwan independence but will continue, and expand, America’s close economic relations and security assistance. 

But the converse will also apply; if China uses force or imposes a blockade against any part of Taiwan, America will not only defend Taiwan, it will formally recognize it.  

To avoid the need to choose among competing security commitments in Europe, the Mideast and the Indo-Pacific, America must not only deter Chinese aggression against Taiwan with strategic clarity. It must also help Ukraine expedite the defeat of Russia’s aggression with timely delivery of the powerful weapons Kyiv seeks to do the job. 

Joseph Bosco served as China country director for the secretary of Defense from 2005 to 2006 and as Asia-Pacific director of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief from 2009 to 2010. He served in the Pentagon when Vladimir Putin invaded Georgia and was involved in Department of Defense discussions about the U.S. response. Follow him on Twitter @BoscoJosephA.