Such an ambiguous approach to Taiwan inadvertently emboldens China to adopt a more aggressive stance toward the island, especially given the perceived low probability of US military intervention under a second Trump administration. This was evidenced by a Chinese spokesman’s statement in January that Taiwan could end up a “discarded chess piece at any time” if Mr Trump were re-elected.
This perspective, however, assumes that the costs of defending Taiwan outweigh the benefits for Mr Trump. Is this assumption accurate, though? Does he genuinely regard defending Taiwan as merely a cost devoid of benefits for the US?
Mr Trump’s strategic framework might perceive defending Taiwan as providing considerable long-term security advantages. By supporting Taiwan, the US prevents China from securing unrestricted access to the Pacific Ocean, a move that could significantly limit China’s regional influence.
Some have suggested that this ambiguity is deliberate. By making inconsistent statements, he keeps adversaries guessing, compelling them to disclose their strategies first. However, this strains diplomatic relations and introduces uncertainty into international policy.
Mr Trump’s erratic approach forces Beijing to prepare for various scenarios. In contrast, Mr Biden’s unwavering stance on defending Taiwan allows China to formulate a predictable strategic response.
Mr Xi could see potential in influencing Mr Trump through negotiations if China offers incentives that outweigh the strategic value of supporting Taiwan. Mr Biden’s steadfast policy positions constrain such opportunities.
Negotiating with Mr Trump, possibly linking Taiwan to other geopolitical considerations like Russia, could sway his support. This could potentially aid Mr Xi in his lifelong ambition: Taiwan reunification.
GLOBAL LEADERSHIP: ISOLATIONISM VS INCLUSIVISM
When former president Trump was in power, he favoured bilateral agreements over multilateralism, resulting in a notable shift in US global leadership. This created a void that China swiftly exploited to assert its influence.
For instance, in 2017, the US announced its withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, arguing it undermined the nation’s economy and sovereignty. In 2018, the US withdrew from UNESCO, citing the organisation’s purported anti-Israel bias. Mr Trump also exited the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal and frequently criticised the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and World Trade Organization (WTO).
