On the evening of October 5th, during Taiwan’s National Day celebrations at the Taipei Arena, President Lai Ching-te introduced an important concept: “national identity.” In his remarks, he emphasized that the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China are “not subordinate to each other.” This stance has drawn a cautious response from Daniel Kritenbrink, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, who advised Taiwan to remain vigilant rather than complacent. He cautioned against actions that might disrupt U.S. interests, emphasizing that Taiwan should avoid becoming a provocateur that alters the status quo.

Reflecting back to Lai’s inaugural address on May 20th, where he proposed the idea of mutual non-subordination, the U.S. State Department’s immediate reaction was to redirect inquiries regarding this statement to Taiwan’s authorities. However, the U.S. expressed support for President Lai’s commitments during his inauguration and victory speech, particularly concerning the maintenance of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and preserving the status quo in cross-strait relations.

Kritenbrink, a prominent voice on East Asian issues within the State Department, encouraged the public to engage with the Taiwanese government on this topic. Amid these developments, he reaffirmed U.S. commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act, the Three Joint Communiqués, and the Six Assurances related to the one-China policy. He reiterated that the U.S. opposes any unilateral changes to the status quo by either side of the Taiwan Strait and does not endorse Taiwanese independence, expressing hope for peaceful resolution of differences.

In the less than six months since Lai took office, the U.S. response has subtly transitioned from an initial warm welcome to a reaffirmation of the one-China policy. Nonetheless, the consistent underlying message remains clear: the U.S. is committed to maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and expects both sides to refrain from provocation.

While Kritenbrink’s statements may not be groundbreaking, their significance can shift depending on the context. Reflecting on history, back in late 2003, then-President Chen Shui-bian sought re-election through a referendum strategy. During that time, the U.S. advised against inflating electoral rhetoric to mitigate regional tensions. Subsequently, then-Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly explicitly communicated to Taiwanese journalists the U.S. opposition to unilateral changes to the status quo.

In December of that year, President George W. Bush, after discussions with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, clearly stated the U.S. opposition to any intentions from Taiwanese leadership to alter the status quo unilaterally. At that moment, it was evident who was attempting to change the dynamics.

Fast forward to 2005, when China enacted the Anti-Secession Law aimed at promoting non-peaceful unification; the U.S. reiterated its opposition to any unilateral changes to the status quo, signaling a clear message to Beijing.

Today, Kritenbrink’s emphasis on opposing unilateral changes underlines U.S. interests in maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. This concern transcends mere electoral dynamics, extending into the future, as any disruption to the status quo could have repercussions for U.S. interests.

Lai’s conversation around national identity was just one aspect of his National Day address. His approach to this subject in broader contexts has gained significant attention from both the U.S. and China. Security experts in Taiwan are predicting potential military drills from Beijing following the Double Tenth National Day, urging the Lai administration to consider the context of Kritenbrink’s statements and to remain alert to the implications at hand.