President Biden to declare that the US will defend Taiwan militarily if China tries to take Taiwan by force. However, a moment later a White House official seemed to slightly correct the president's remarks by saying that the policy vis-à-vis Taiwan had not changed.
Exactly the same thing had happened some time ago. with practically the same declarations of the president and with a press release following these declarations to rectify the remarks of the President.
Biden seems to want to break away from strategic ambiguity. But what is the point of this strategy? Wouldn't it be better if the USA clearly said that it would defend Taiwan to deter China and reassure its allies in the Pacific?
At the risk of sounding cynical, it is not clear that President Biden knows himself what US policy toward Taiwan is supposed to be. That being worrying not only in terms of the risks it poses for a military showdown with China by miscalculation, but also for the geopolitical ramifications that it brings.
US policy should be to separate China from Russia as much as possible. Ukraine has thrown a bit of a monkey wrench into that, but even then, China has been careful not to endorse, outright, Russia's actions against Kiev.
Mr. Biden's blunder - and it was that - makes it harder. If China sees a hardening of the American position on Taiwan, it is apt to tilt toward Russia more explicitly. This having potentially disastrous consequences for the West, which likely lacks the capacity - certainly in the military sphere - to counter a Sino-Russian alliance.
That said, US policy on Taiwan from 1949 to 1978 was to recognize it as the legal government of China in the wake of the Communist Revolution in Beijing. This began to change with President Nixon's opening to China in 1972, and was completed by President Carter's recognition of Beijing in 1979.
The terms of that recognition were sotto voce that the USA would recognize Beijing as the legal government of China so long as China did not attempt a military takeover of Taipei. In that connection, the USA would have limited scope to provide Taiwan the material means to arm the Taiwanese military, though not going so far as placing US military personnel or bases on Taiwanese territory. Also, Taiwan would be left free to trade with the rest of the world.
This "strategic ambiguity" is where things have stood. The US gets the economic benefits of trade with Taiwan, plus informally maintaining its Pacific strategic defense perimeter. China gets US diplomatic recognition and trade relations. Taiwan gets trade benefits in security, albeit while not being recognized as a sovereign government.
To be sure, Americans have a hard time playing this came - and to this the Biden administration has added ten thumbed incompetence. However, it has certain benefits, not least that it allowed the USA to exacerbate the divide between the former USSR and China, and thus ultimately the West won the Cold War.
That was an era of ideological conflict. This an era of realpolitik. Yet it still yields certain advantages and Mr. Biden's verbal blunder has, in that connection, done more harm than good.
Historically, the US has publicly held the position of ambiguity, not explicitly stating whether it would intervene or not. Now the reality is that such decisions and details are handled behind closed doors, and there's little doubt that the US has had a much more direct tone towards the People's Republic of China when not in the spotlight.
Biden's speech was actually not his worst moment of the week, but it was paradoxical: The statement making headlines was that he claims the US would get involved in the event it was attacked, but his next statement that was mostly ignored was that he supports the one China policy. These are mutually exclusive stances in the context of Taiwanese autonomy.
The main issue with breaking ambiguity on this, is that it now gives China the opportunity to call his bluff and invade anyway. It's no secret that the US is already spending itself into oblivion on a war it isn't even a belligerent in, and has lost most of its own standing among it's own allies. There's virtually no support in the US population for a war over anything short of a direct attack on US soil, either. China is in a pretty dire situation right now too though, and if it got bogged down attempting to take Taiwan, it wouldn't be able to sustain itself longer than it would take for the rest of the world to exploit weakness. Taiwan is significantly more heavily armed and even more motivated than Ukraine to defend itself, and for it to have any value, it needs to be taken mostly intact. China on the other hand has zero past experience carrying out an invasion of that scale even in training scenarios, and even just crossing the strait poses a significant logistics challenge for them. Multiple members of US government are pretty soft towards China however, and there's a good chance that the current administration would in fact drag its feet on intervening if they believed the battle would end quickly and the flow of microchips and other invaluable resources out of Taiwan would resume.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(18-24)
+1 y
The US has been supporting Taiwan ever since WW2 when they as the Chinese nationalists fought the Japanese and after when they were forced out by the communists. The Taiwanese have nothing to worry about as the Chinese are equipped like the Russians.
They piss their pants about a war with China. It would not only be a possible embarrassment, but also our dear cheap products from there would then be cut off. And 'war' is a realistic option as long as that Ping Pong idiot (Winnie the Poo) is at the helm. However - Taiwan (or ''Formosa'' ? :D ) would be an ideal location from where to ''defend the free world''... which would be one other capitalist lie - but it sounds good. Wrap this now in ''diplomatic'' words.
Taiwan in of itself wants a level of ambiguity with China, so Amarica should follow suit. The problem is the Ukrainian invasion by Russian aggression. There was a lot of hemming and hawing untill it was to late to avoid the war.
I definitely see the logical leap comparing Ukraine and Taiwan with Russia and China aggression. The difference is Chinas economy has a more global presence and less likely to press the same aggression.
They want to keep blurry according to the prisdent in cold war made. It is not firt time they throw alliance. It is contradictory about their one china policy I guess their law system is not systematize. concept is fragment so can not listen to them habit from desire. It always change. Just repeat without knowing They dont know taiwan just know anti-china that is theme. China dont listen to them not because anti-USA but you know what happen when king is stupid. You have to..
As I understand we recognize Mainland Peoples republic of China as the legitimate China not the Taiwan Republic of China. I think if China involves Taiwan we really wouldn’t do anything to stop them other then sanctions. China could take Taiwan within days of invading.
US policy toward Taiwan is to talk big, antagonize China into invading, then prove we don’t mean what we say if China invades.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
It’s almost like Biden desperately wants military conflict with a nuclear power and his handlers have to constantly tell the world that, “That’s not what the President really meant.”
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
