Beijing’s strong reaction to U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s August visit to Taiwan highlights how the island has become ground zero in major power competition, with U.S.-China relations at their lowest point in decades. Indeed, the Taiwan Strait is now the most plausible locale for a military confrontation between the United States and China. Most alarmingly, Beijing and Washington are prone to misread the signals of the other, especially where Taiwan is concerned. Misinterpreting rhetoric or actions can be extremely dangerous because it can trigger action-reaction cycles that can spiral into unintended escalation and unwanted conflict.

President Joe Biden during a virtual meeting with Xi Jinping, China’s leader, at the White House on Nov. 15, 2021. They have spoken only five times since early 2021. (Doug Mills/The New York Times)
President Joe Biden during a virtual meeting with Xi Jinping, China’s leader, at the White House on Nov. 15, 2021. They have spoken only five times since early 2021. (Doug Mills/The New York Times)

Amid heightened tensions, opportunities for misinterpretation are ample — and dangerous. In an interview aired just this weekend, President Biden said — for the fourth time during his presidency — that the U.S. military would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinse invasion of the island. Although White House officials averred that the president’s remarks were consistent with U.S. policy, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said Biden’s comments “severely violate the commitment the U.S. made not to support Taiwan independence.”

While both sides recognize that Taiwan has long been the most contentious and sensitive issue in the bilateral relationship, this has not translated into each side being able to clearly decipher the signaling of the other. This is evident from analyzing the signaling of Washington and Beijing during the first months of the Biden administration in early 2021 and an examination of the more recent trip to Taiwan by Speaker Pelosi.

Misreading Biden

Available evidence suggests that many Chinese policymakers and analysts assumed that the Biden administration would pursue a more conciliatory China policy than the prior administration and concurrently would adopt a more accommodating approach vis-à-vis Taiwan. When this did not happen — Beijing interrupted Washington’s early rhetoric and actions regarding Taiwan as anything but accommodating — it came as a major shock.

Indeed, Beijing read initial statements by Biden administration officials as indicating a significant hardening of Washington’s policy toward Taipei. Chinese policymakers and analysts fixated on the term “rock solid,” used on January 23, 2021 by State Department Spokesperson Ned Price to describe the US commitment to Taiwan. They misidentified the statement as the first time the phrase “rock solid” was used (National Security Council spokesperson Emily Horne utilized the term on January 20), interpreting it as evidence that Biden administration aimed to deepen the U.S.-Taiwan relationship.

Yet, this was the opposite of what the new administration was intending to signal, which was reassurance that U.S. policy toward Taiwan had not changed. U.S. policymakers did not give the same emphasis to the January 23 statement and described the January 20 use of the term as an “articulation of U.S. policy,” with the Biden administration’s Taiwan policy being viewed as being one of continuity.

Along with misinterpreting Washington’s comments on Taiwan, Beijing appeared to see U.S. engagement with the island as a sign that the Biden administration was intent on strengthening U.S. ties to Taiwan. Through this lens, Taiwanese Representative to the United States Bi-khim Hsiao’s presence at Biden’s swearing-in ceremony was seen by some Chinese policymakers and analysts as a departure from past practice and a signal of the administration’s plans to strengthen relations with Taiwan. U.S. experts and policymakers interviewed by the authors saw nothing new in Hsiao’s attendance at the inauguration, pointing out that Taiwan’s representative has attended prior presidential inaugurations. Moreover, the invitation to Hsiao was extended by the Joint Congressional Committee in Inaugural Ceremonies, not by any executive branch entity.

Seeing Congress at Center Stage

While the intricacies of U.S. inauguration protocol may not be fully appreciated by Chinese policymakers and analysts, a widely held assumption in China is that actions by the legislative branch are an extension of executive branch policy. Chinese experts have also expressed the belief that Congress will have increased involvement in U.S. diplomacy and security due to political polarization in the United States as well as the need for congressional support on key items on the Biden administration’s domestic agenda.  In other words, Beijing assumes Congress is working in tandem with the White House to further strengthen Washington’s relationship with Taipei.

This assumption sheds light on why Beijing reacted so strongly to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s August visit to Taiwan. In bilateral communications with Beijing, the White House stressed that it did not have the power to control the speaker’s international travel itinerary. Beijing, however, appeared to focus on Pelosi’s position as speaker of the House and constitutional designation as second in line to succeed the U.S. president (after the vice president). Thus, it appears that in Beijing’s view the visit was seen as a deliberate action by the U.S. government aimed at upgrading U.S.-Taiwan official ties. Despite this view, a visit to Taiwan by the speaker of the House is not without precedent: in 1997, then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich also traveled to the island.

Elevating Tensions

Do these misinterpretations and misunderstandings matter? Yes, they do. The stakes associated with them are high. In the context of the deep mutual mistrust and suspicion currently plaguing U.S.-China relations, the dangers of unintended escalation and specter of military conflict in the Taiwan Strait are all too real. In fact, as the aircraft carrying Speaker Pelosi landed last month in Taipei, Chinese military jets squeezed the median line in the Taiwan Strait headed toward the island. While Beijing’s act of provocation was obvious, its intended signal was not.

Moreover, it is not only Beijing that has difficulty interpreting signals out of Washington; Washington also finds it difficult to read signals coming out of Beijing. China’s Communist Party leaders, for example, regularly insist that Taiwan is a “core interest” over which they are prepared to use military force. Yet, according to a newly released USIP report, it is not always clear to Washington policymakers what Beijing means when a Chinese official uses language such as “If you play with fire, you will set yourself on fire.” While Washington recognizes the inflammatory verbiage is related to Taiwan, it is far from clear what signal Beijing is sending.

Chinese leaders appear to see U.S. actions as part of a well-coordinated effort to qualitatively upgrade Washington’s relationship with Taipei. At the same time, U.S. leaders tend to see Beijing’s increasing scope and frequency in the use of armed coercion as evidence of decision to seek unification by brute military force. Whether these interpretations are accurate is less important than whether each side perceives them to be.

The above analysis underscores the urgent need for clearer signals to be articulated by authoritative actors and then consistently communicated through multiple channels. This of course is easy to say but very difficult to do.

Alison McFarland is a research analyst for the China and North Korea programs at the U.S. Institute of Peace.

Related Publications

Beijing’s Strategy for Asserting Its “Party Rule by Law” Abroad

Beijing’s Strategy for Asserting Its “Party Rule by Law” Abroad

Thursday, September 29, 2022

By: Jordan Link;  Nina Palmer;  Laura Edwards

Under the leadership of Xi Jinping, the Chinese Communist Party has taken steps to assert more influence over the international legal system and to shape the global legal environment to better serve its political and economic objectives. This report examines the potential ramifications of China’s assertive use of new legal tools for US interests and international stability, and discusses several options that the United States and its partners can pursue to bolster the rules-based order that underpins global stability and cooperation.

Type: Special Report

Justice, Security & Rule of Law

Modi, Putin and Xi Join the SCO Summit Amid Turbulent Times

Modi, Putin and Xi Join the SCO Summit Amid Turbulent Times

Thursday, September 22, 2022

By: Cordelia Buchanan Ponczek;  Mary Glantz, Ph.D.;  Carla Freeman, Ph.D.;  Vikram J. Singh

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) resumed in-person summits last week in the wake of the COVID pandemic and at a moment of unprecedent change and challenge. Member states Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are at war over their border. So are dialogue partner states Armenia and Azerbaijan. All SCO members are dealing with the economic impact of the Russian war in Ukraine as well as climate disruptions like the floods overwhelming Pakistan. Mistrust between India and Pakistan, full members since 2017, make cooperation difficult on the SCO’s original core mission of counterterrorism. And India and China, which were building toward the “Wuhan spirit” of cooperation when India joined in 2017, are hardly on speaking terms despite recent progress toward deescalating a friction point along their disputed Line of Actual Control.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Global Policy

China’s Influence on the Freely Associated States of the Northern Pacific

China’s Influence on the Freely Associated States of the Northern Pacific

Tuesday, September 20, 2022

By: USIP China-Freely Associated States Senior Study Group

Around the world, Beijing is investing heavily in diplomatic, security, cultural, and economic ties in a bid to increase its global influence, strengthen its ability to protect and advance its national interests, attract support in multilateral fora and international institutions, and fracture the global consensus on key issues it views as unfavorable to its geopolitical ambitions. The Pacific Islands region—defined as the vast stretch of Pacific Ocean between Asian littoral waters in the west, Guam in the north and Hawaii in the northeast, and Australia and New Zealand in the south and southwest—has been no exception.

Type: Report

Global Policy

Why China’s Influence in the Freely Associated States Matters to the United States

Why China’s Influence in the Freely Associated States Matters to the United States

Thursday, September 15, 2022

By: Admiral (Ret.) Philip Davidson;  Brigadier General (Ret.) David Stilwell;  Robert Underwood

For much of the last 75 years, the Pacific region and in particular the Freely Associated States of the northern Pacific (FAS) — the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), the Republic of Palau and the Republic of the Marshall Islands — were not regarded as U.S. national security priorities.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Global Policy

View All Publications