Introduction: A triangle built on assumptions
Recent debates about Taiwan hinge on three stark assumptions: Xi Jinping cannot absorb Taiwan, Lai Ching-te cannot declare independence, and Donald Trump will defend Taiwan if China attacks. Two of these claims appear to hold, while one is a dangerous lie that could mislead policy, risk miscalculation, and raise the chances of crisis in the Taiwan Strait. The question is not which side is most comfortable with the facts, but which illusion policymakers choose to treat as truth.
The three assumptions, laid out
The first assumption imagines that Beijing’s objective in the near term is to absorb Taiwan without a protracted invasion. It suggests that Taiwan’s geography, international pressure, and economic interdependence make a peaceful approach viable for Beijing. The second assumes that Lai Ching-te cannot unilaterally declare independence without a red line being crossed by Beijing, either militarily or politically. The third premise posits that the United States would automatically step in to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack, regardless of costs or strategic calculations.
The dangerous lie: how risk clusters around assumptions
Of these, the most dangerous is the third: an ironclad U.S. guarantee that can be interpreted in multiple ways and may not align with strategic realities. Washington has long signaled a commitment to a Taiwan scenario that preserves the status quo and avoids a war, yet it has stopped short of a formal treaty commitment. The lie emerges when policymakers present a binary commitment (we will defend Taiwan) as an infallible rule, without detailing the contingent thresholds, costs, and strategic calculations that would frame such a decision. This mischaracterizes deterrence, creates false security for Taipei, and invites miscalculation by Beijing and regional partners alike.
What happens if the lie goes unchallenged
Without clarity, Taiwan’s leadership, including figures like Lai Ching-te, may face pressure to push for a status shift that could trigger a crisis scenario. Beijing could interpret any bold pledge as a green light to test red lines, while Washington’s allies in the region might expect U.S. intervention that could be delayed or scaled differently than anticipated. In this environment, strategic ambiguity becomes risky ambiguity: it preserves room for maneuver but erodes trust and predictability, key elements of deterrence.
Two truths that do hold—and what they imply
Two underlying realities remain consistent: the United States’ interest in preventing a unilateral change to the status quo and Beijing’s determination to resolve cross-strait differences on its terms. Both sides understand that a miscalculated move could draw in broader regional powers and disrupt global markets. Taiwan, for its part, seeks security and international space without provoking a full-scale war. These convergences create a path for calibrated diplomacy rather than dramatic showdowns.
Policy implications: how to reduce risk and uncertainty
To avoid crisis, policymakers should redescribe commitments in clear, verifiable terms. This means transparent deterrence statements that specify conditions, thresholds, and communication channels. It also involves strengthening deterrence through economic resilience, diversified security partnerships, and rapid crisis-management mechanisms among the United States, Taiwan, and regional partners. For Lai Ching-te and Taiwan’s government, the goal should be to maintain legitimacy and international space while avoiding provocative declarations that could escalate tension. For Beijing, signals that a peaceful cross-strait approach remains possible, contingent on mutual restraint, could reduce misinterpretation of strategic signals.
Conclusion: learning from the past, avoiding the trap of a dangerous lie
The Taiwan question remains one of the most delicate strategic puzzles of the era. The danger lies not in what is certain, but in what is assumed and then mistaken for inevitability. By debunking the lie about automatic defense and clarifying policy boundaries, Washington, Taipei, and Beijing can lower the temperature, reduce miscalculation, and keep options open for a peaceful, stable future in the Taiwan Strait.
