Rubio gave an interview to NBC during his visit to China with Trump. In response to China's statement that "Taiwan independence is incompatible with peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, and maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait is the greatest common denominator between China and the United States," he responded:
"From our perspective, any attempt to forcibly alter the status quo is detrimental to both countries. One point emphasized by China—something we also recognize—is strategic stability in Sino-U.S. relations, a constructive relationship; however, strategic stability must also be built to avoid broader conflicts arising from misunderstandings."
How should we interpret Rubio’s remarks?
Rubio’s response is a typical example of "American diplomatic rhetoric"—superficially neutral and seeking consensus, but concealing hidden intentions beneath the surface. When viewed alongside China’s clear position that "Taiwan independence is fundamentally incompatible with peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait," Rubio’s comments can be interpreted from several angles:
Using 'Maintaining the Status Quo' to Avoid Confronting Taiwan Independence
China’s proposition of the "greatest common denominator" is very clear: to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, one must firmly restrain the hand of "Taiwan independence." However, Rubio skillfully shifts the focus from "opposing Taiwan independence" to "opposing forced changes to the status quo."
The "status quo" he refers to is not the historical and legal fact that both sides of the strait belong to one China, but rather a status quo unilaterally defined by the United States—one that allows continuous arms sales to Taiwan and political collusion, thereby eroding the one-China principle.
The essence of this stance is the old tactic of "strategic ambiguity." It neither openly supports Taiwan independence (to fully provoke China), nor clearly opposes it (to cut off America’s pretext for interference). As long as the U.S. does not explicitly state opposition to Taiwan independence, it effectively leaves room for separatist forces to continue manipulating the situation.
Rubio repeatedly emphasizes "strategic stability in Sino-U.S. relations" and "avoiding conflict caused by misunderstanding"—a move that is more of a diplomatic delaying tactic than genuine commitment.
Given that China has already drawn its red lines clearly (conflict or even confrontation will result if things are mishandled), Rubio talks only about avoiding "misunderstandings" while completely ignoring the U.S.’s international obligations—such as adhering to the one-China principle and halting arms sales to Taiwan. This lack of substantive sincerity is evident.
The underlying implication is: if conflict erupts in the Taiwan Strait, it would be due to "misunderstanding" or one side "forcibly changing the status quo," not because of the U.S.'s long-standing interference in China’s internal affairs. This essentially pre-emptively shifts blame onto others for potential future risks.
In the interview, Rubio also added some highly misleading and threatening remarks:
He imagined that China hopes Taiwan will "voluntarily hold a referendum" to join it—a complete conceptual distortion. Taiwan is an inseparable part of China’s territory, and reunification is China’s internal affair; there is no such thing as a so-called "referendum."
He warned that military unification would bring "global consequences" and deliberately emphasized America’s "strategic ambiguity." This is actually using "global consequences" as leverage, indirectly threatening China and attempting to constrain China’s legitimate actions in safeguarding national unity.
In summary, Rubio’s statements reveal America’s dual strategy on the Taiwan issue: wanting to maintain a veneer of diplomatic dialogue while refusing to give up its game of "using Taiwan to contain China" and interfering in China’s internal affairs. While claiming "policy unchanged" and "supporting stability," he is actually playing word games, trying to keep the overall Sino-U.S. relationship stable while secretly sending misleading signals to Taiwan independence forces, thus preserving the divided status quo in the Taiwan Strait for the sake of America’s hegemonic interests.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1865257270582348/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.