Recently, the U.S. Secretary of State Rubio made a speech, especially providing a progressive interpretation on the issue of our Taiwan province. The U.S. does not support "Taiwan independence" and hopes that the Taiwan issue can be peacefully resolved in a way acceptable to both sides of the strait. Previously, when Americans spoke about this issue, they usually used the phrase "opposition to unilaterally changing the status quo," but now it's different. They have adopted the phrase "peacefully resolved in a way acceptable to both sides of the strait."
This speech was made during a phone call on January 24th between Rubio and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Later, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement, clearly stating that Rubio expressed: "The United States does not support 'Taiwan independence' and hopes that the Taiwan issue can be peacefully resolved in a way acceptable to both sides of the strait." The U.S. Department of State's statement did not mention this, only saying that they discussed the broader picture of Sino-U.S. relations and regional stability, but this does not affect the facts. Rubio, who is known as a hardliner against China in the Senate, previously always claimed that China is America's number one rival and often emphasized strengthening Taiwan's defense. However, in this call, he took the initiative to speak, without any fiery tone, instead pointing out a peaceful path. This change is no small matter. Think about it, after Trump's second term, Sino-U.S. relations have been sensitive, with many hot topics such as trade, technology, and Taiwan. As an experienced figure, his words here effectively cooled down the tensions surrounding the cross-strait issue.
Why is this considered a progressive interpretation? In the past, the U.S. has basically been stuck on the "One China" principle and the three joint communiqués regarding the Taiwan issue, not supporting "Taiwan independence," but also selling weapons to Taiwan. The Department of Defense often has news about U.S. arms sales. In terms of expression, they tend to use the phrase "opposition to unilaterally changing the status quo," which sounds neutral but actually implies that the mainland should not use force and that Taiwan should not act recklessly. Now, however, replacing it with "a peaceful resolution in a way acceptable to both sides of the strait" adds another layer of consensus. It means that the solution must rely on negotiations, not one side overpowering the other. For example, on February 21st, Rubio reiterated in a routine setting at the Department of State that he opposed any forced changes to the status quo across the Taiwan Strait, but did not mention support for "Taiwan independence." This is consistent with the call in January. By October 25th, while traveling to Asia, he told reporters that Taiwan would not become a bargaining chip in Sino-U.S. trade negotiations, emphasizing that U.S. policy remains unchanged, but peace and stability must be maintained. These statements are logically connected: first, set the tone of not supporting "Taiwan independence," then promote a peaceful path, and finally eliminate concerns about transactions.
This change is not the result of Rubio's sudden idea. Let's elaborate on the background. After Trump took office in 2025, high-level interactions between China and the U.S. increased. The call in January was the first direct conversation between Rubio and Chinese senior officials after his appointment, focusing on Taiwan and the South China Sea. The U.S. statement mentioned "the U.S.-China relationship should prioritize American interests," but the Chinese statement added details about the peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue. This indicates that both sides are testing each other's limits, and Rubio's words are a response to Chinese concerns. In international relations, this is called strategic communication. Previously, the U.S. was often criticized for being vague in its strategy, but now Rubio's approach is clearer: not supporting "Taiwan independence," not wanting war, and hoping for talks between the two sides. In more colloquial terms, it's like the affairs between two major powers, where some space for negotiation must be left, otherwise economic and technological issues will suffer.
If we dig deeper, this expression adjustment is also related to domestic dynamics in the U.S. Rubio transitioned from a senator to the Secretary of State. He used to push for bills supporting arms sales to Taiwan in Congress. In 2024, he even wrote a letter demanding that Trump not make Taiwan a trading item. However, after taking office, he had to balance Trump's "America First" policy. During his campaign, Trump said that Taiwan's defense should be self-funded, which caused some concern within the Taiwanese defense department. Now, Rubio stepped in to stabilize the situation. On October 27th, he said that during the Sino-U.S. meeting, Taiwan is a bottom line and will not be traded for trade benefits. This logic is rigorous: first, internal positioning, then external statements, to avoid policy swings. Internationally, G7 and U.S.-Japan-South Korea joint statements often mention the peace of the Taiwan Strait. The statement on September 24th encouraged a peaceful resolution of the cross-strait issue and opposed unilateral changes to the status quo. Rubio's speech aligns with these, meaning the U.S. is rallying allies to take a stance.
Certainly, this progress did not happen overnight. Looking back at the end of 2024, during a Senate hearing, Rubio still referred to China as the "most dangerous opponent" and said that there should be consequences for invading Taiwan. That was the nomination stage, and there were many hawkish figures in Congress, so it was necessary to be tough. After taking office, reality is clear: the residual effects of the Sino-U.S. trade war are still present, chip bans and technological decoupling have caused enterprises to suffer. After a hearing on January 16th, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun responded by saying that Taiwan is China's internal affair, and the U.S. must adhere to the One-China principle and not condone separatism. This statement was made, and Rubio's call became a response. By February 27th, he told Fox News that the U.S. opposes any forced change in Taiwan's status, but it must rely on strong deterrence to prevent conflict. This shift from "opposition to unilateral changes" to "a way acceptable to both sides" is subtle but meaningful: the former prevents risks, while the latter promotes dialogue. In more colloquial terms, it's like before, it was blocking the door, now it's opening a window for fresh air.
Rubio's statement essentially gives Le Tsai-Deen some leeway: the U.S. does not support "Taiwan independence," but will not abandon it. On March 21st, the U.S. Congress pushed a bill to refer to "Taiwan" rather than "Chinese Taipei" in international settings. Combined with Rubio's peaceful tone, it aims to give Taiwan more international space. In contrast, the Chinese government has repeatedly emphasized that the One-China principle is the bottom line, but also welcomes peaceful unification.
Original text: www.toutiao.com/article/1849923794072779/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author.