US President Joe Biden speaks during a news conference in Tokyo. (Photo Credit: AP/PTI)

US President Joe Biden said on Monday he would be willing to authorise the use of force to defend Taiwan against any acts of aggression from mainland China. During a joint press conference with Japanese PM Fumio Kishida, Biden fielded a question on the defence of Taiwan by comparing the situation to that in Ukraine, saying "if there is no rapprochement between Ukraine and Russia and sanctions are not sustained in many ways, then what signal does it send to China about attempting to take Taiwan by force?"

When asked bluntly whether the US would militarily intervene in the case of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, Biden stated "yes" before going on to say "that's the commitment we made."

Fifty years ago, in February 1972, at the height of the Cold War, US President Richard Nixon made a historic week-long visit to China, that stunned the world as no one outside a small number of US administration officials was aware of the preparations for it.

Henry Kissinger, the then National Security Adviser made an ultra-secret visit to Beijing in July 1971 and met the Chinese leaders to lay the groundwork for Nixon’s visit.

The communique issued at the end of President Nixon’s path-breaking visit to Beijing in 1972 recognised Taiwan as part of China.

The purpose was to break the already frayed relationship between the Soviet Union and China and set the latter up as a rival to Moscow in the Cold War chess game.

The Nixon visit succeeded in doing that. But some concessions had to be made. Taiwan was one.

Since 1949, when the KMT under Chiang Kai-shek’s forces retreated from the mainland to the island (then Formosa) across the Taiwan Strait, the US, then scared of yet another Red giant rising, had propped up Formosa as a proxy for China, providing brutal Chiang dictatorship the military wherewithal and financial aid.

But Formosa/Taiwan was expendable. That is what the Nixon-Zhou-Enlai communique at the end of the US president’s visit did.

In a joint communique, the US side declared, "The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all US forces and military installations from Taiwan. In the meantime, it will progressively reduce its forces and military installations in Taiwan as the tension in the area diminishes".

Since then, there has been speculation about what exactly the communique left unsaid. Most American historians view the word “Chinese” was placed deliberately by the US drafters, who were aware that the people on the island did not identify themselves as “Chinese”.

Whether Zhou, described by Kissinger in his note to President Nixon as the “most impressive statesman” he had met after Charles De Gaulle, noticed the loophole is not clear.

But on the face of it, the communique is clear about the fate of Taiwan. It does not preclude the eventual unification of Taiwan with China.

But it must be borne in mind that the US statement in the joint communique promised to scale down the considerable US military presence on the island at the time, which the US did, but never quit the island, always maintaining many military advisors and military equipment on its soil.

During a toast at a banquet in Shanghai, Nixon declared that the "American people" were dedicated to the "principle" that "never again shall foreign domination, foreign occupation, be visited upon this city or any part of China or any independent country in this world".

In that background, Biden’s remark leaves more questions unanswered, than it answers.

For 64 years, China has made no military advance on Taiwan. The last clash was in 1958 when Chinese naval vessels attempted an amphibious landing on the Dongding islands in Taiwanese possession. That attack was beaten back by the Taiwanese.

Since then, there have been random shelling, the firing of missiles across the Strait, China’s air force violating the Taiwanese airspace, and its naval vessels testing the island’s defences. But no major clash has taken place that could pose an existential threat to the island.

That situation could change, with President Biden’s answer in the affirmative to a specific question at a press conference in Tokyo: “Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?”

Analysts of Biden’s one-word response have struggled to make sense of it. Is this a proxy declaration of war? Or is it a declaration of intention of war if China tries to occupy Taiwan by force?

Is it a test of the will of the Chinese leadership? Or is it just a knee-jerk reaction by a president who will be completing 80 this November, and not as alert as he was when younger?

On the face of it, the US president’s answer defies logic, but on the eve of the Quad summit, it made sense. Biden wanted to declare categorically that the US and its allies would take reactive action if China tried to occupy the island by force.

There is a deliberate ambiguity in US policy, which many attribute to the lack of due diligence by officials of the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon. Nixon, in his hurry to score a victory in the Cold War by dividing the Sino-Soviet axis, may have promised to barter away Taiwan in return for getting China on the US side to weaken the Soviet Union.

But the American policymakers always harboured the angst about whether they had bargained away too much, as the US administration under Jimmy Carter prepared to formally recognise China (which came about in 1979).

A look at the ‘Memorandum From the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs Zbigniew Brzezinski to President Carter’ dated March 8, 1977, with the subject line ‘Nixon and Kissinger Memcons with Mao and Chou, 1971–73: A Preliminary Assessment’ is illustrative.

“…in the course of the remarkably frank, wide-ranging conversations, each side made many statements about their policies and expectations. The Chinese made no promises. On our side, however, Nixon–HAK carefully repeated five points on several occasions. Stated first before the Nixon trip, these so-called “Five Points” constitute a SECRET PLEDGE:

—There is one China and Taiwan is part of it. We will not assert the status of Taiwan is undetermined.

—We will not support any Taiwan independence movement.

—We will use our influence to discourage Japan from moving into Taiwan as our presence diminishes.

—We will support any peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue that can be worked out.

—We seek normalization. (Nixon–HAK suggested the process would be completed by 1976.)

Nixon–HAK made two other pledges as well:

—We will not participate in arrangements that affect Chinese interests without prior consultation.

—We will reduce our military forces on Taiwan as progress is made toward normalization.”

Then, Brzesinki goes into a self-searching mode, raising some agonising queries.

“The record raises several profound questions we now must address: (1) Should the secret pledges remain in force? Without these commitments, the Sino-American relationship could not have evolved to their present state. To retract them would destroy the “spirit” behind the Shanghai Communique. (2) Should the pledges be kept secret? If they are made public prior to normalization, the Taiwan lobby would raise a political storm. (3) If the pledges and actions are to be kept secret, how many people can safely see the record and become full partners in the making of China policy? Given the danger of leakage, should the circle remain tight?

Finally, the transcripts reveal the opening to China succeeded because of the U.S. flexibility on the Taiwan issue. The “five points” enabled our two countries to pursue our parallel strategic interests vis-a-vis the USSR. What leverage will we surrender over the Soviets should we fail to demonstrate continued movement on the Taiwan issue?”

The world has changed much since then. China, which the US saw as a partner then, is now an undeclared enemy. The US now sees Taiwan as a pawn in a war game, rather than a bargaining chip in a card game. So, is Asia being primed as the next theatre of war after Europe? Will the rising continent again drown in war, deprivation and penury?

Those are difficult questions to answer. Biden’s remark, at this point, looks like a gangsta challenge to China. It appears to be designed more to deter a possible Chinese move on Taiwan, that US analysts have speculated could take place, under the shadow of the Ukraine war.

But other analysts have discounted an aggressive move by the Chinese against Taiwan at this point of time, pointing out the Russian reverses in the war, and the effective civilian resistance which has prevented a triumph for Putin may make the Chinese leaders think twice.

The Chinese economy has been affected by the war and the western sanctions on China, as much as any other country.

Also, the fresh outbreak of Covid and resultant shutdowns of whole cities, have hit the Chinese economy hard, with production lines closed, and supply lines snagged.

The Chinese economy is likely to grow at 5.5 per cent this year or less, a rare occurrence. State-owned enterprises are likely to log billions of dollars in losses.

A war with the West, even as the Ukraine conflict is raging, could devastate the world economy further, with China bearing the brunt.

Considering everything, the CPC leadership in Beijing is likely to treat Biden’s remark as a deliberate provocation worth ignoring.

After all, time is on China’s side as far as Taiwan is considered. There is nothing that Beijing will gain by making a move on Taiwan. Such a move and its horrific consequences to economies everywhere could only make it more unpopular, and even cost it support among ASEAN nations, some of whom back it and many are ambivalent. India certainly won’t like the prospect at all, considering that it needs at least a decade of development to become an upper-middle-income country.

The 21st Century was supposed to belong to Asia. Economic historians such as Angus Maddison had predicted that 400 years after the mid-17th Century, when China and India together owned half of the world’s GDP, Asia would again be the centrepiece of the world. The West colonised India and debilitated China and by 1950, both countries were poorer than church mice.

Now, the West has stepped into Asia again, and its plans for the continent are only in the realm of speculation.

Ask youth to be vigilant of internal and external forces as people in power were making efforts to destroy centuries-old brotherhood and unity

The BJP's win in four states has sent a message to the BJP rank and file that what matters most in party's victories is the Modi magic

Chautala's prison term comes at a time when his party, the INLD has largely lost its political significance

Unofficial estimates hold that India could have more than eight lakh sex workers nationwide

The education department held internal tests in NAS format realigning syllabus on NCERT

The victory completed Mourinho's clean sweep of European trophies

Yediyurappa's decline signals the rise of the BL Santhosh era in Karnataka politics

A resurrected and revitalised Mourinho is exactly what football needs

The Ukraine issue has exposed many grave weaknesses in the UN where the veto power of P-5 has been a major stumbling block to peace

An impression persist that the system has not changed despite pretensions of a new resolve at Chintan Shivir

Any wrong move will have horrific consequences for economies everywhere and may make China even more unpopular

Unlike the UK and US, India has an inflationary impulse largely driven by consumer demand