Freedomwld
Member
- Messages
- 15
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
According to a verbatim transcript of the interview published by Time on Tuesday (4th), Time asked: "Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director William Burns once said that Chinese President Xi Jinping has ordered preparations for an invasion of Taiwan by 2027. You (Biden) have mentioned on many occasions that you will use force to protect Taiwan. What does this mean?”
U.S. President Biden once again faced the "archaeological question" of whether to send troops to defend Taiwan. No longer as brief and affirmative as the past four times, Biden's attitude this time is much vaguer, and his choice of words is even more roundabout on whether to directly send troops to intervene in the Taiwan Strait war. In fact, Biden is more likely to return to the basic stance of U.S. policy toward Taiwan, maintaining "strategic ambiguity" and alternately using warnings and reassurances to Beijing and Taipei.
Biden's speeches in the early days of his administration in 2021, from keeping his promise to Taiwan to directly stating that he would send troops to defend Taiwan that was invaded by Beijing, were questioned. The United States has completely changed its long-term ambiguous position and moved towards a clear strategic commitment to clearly commit to safeguarding Taiwan's security.
But judging from the verbatim transcript released by Time magazine, Biden came prepared this time. First of all, when reporters asked Biden to explain whether he meant "sending troops to Taiwan" when he said that he would "use the U.S. military to defend Taiwan" several times in the past, this time he asked to see the situation and mentioned that he reiterated to Xi Jinping that he follows the principles of previous U.S. presidents. way of doing.
Biden continued: "The United States does not seek Taiwan's independence, and if China unilaterally changes the status quo across the Taiwan Strait, the United States will not fail to defend Taiwan."
Biden's "will not fail to defend Taiwan" here is no longer as proactive and clear as in the past few speeches. He also has to add the proviso that "China will unilaterally change the status quo." Returning to the United States, he "does not support Taiwan's independence and opposes either side of the Taiwan Strait." long-term policy to "one-sidedly change the status quo".
Regarding whether to send troops to Taiwan and whether to launch strikes from the bases of US military allies in the Indo-Pacific, Biden's answer is intriguing. He did not rule out using US military power, but said, "There is a clear difference between this and sending land, sea and air forces."
Biden's remarks completely echoed the U.S. position over the past two years of Russia's aggression in Ukraine. The United States provides money and military strength to Ukraine, but it does not send troops to Ukraine to participate in the war. The United States is very clear about its role and interests. There is a "clear distinction" between "assisting in the defense of Ukraine" and "preventing itself from direct conflict with Russia." The United States will never allow itself to cross and become involved in a conflict.
The current situation in Ukraine does not rule out being a challenge to Taiwan in the future. However, although Biden did not explain the necessary conditions for sending troops to intervene in the Taiwan Strait conflict, he did not completely rule out the possibility and return to the policy basics of the past with strategic ambiguity.
In addition, the US position has always been that it does not support Taiwan's independence, but Biden said this time that the United States does not "seek" Taiwan's independence. When did the pursuit of independence become an American goal? What Biden may mean here is that there is no room for Taiwan independence within the U.S. policy framework, and it will not support a Taiwan independence regime.
Comparing Biden's latest statement, he used the context of Taiwan's independence and one-sided change of the status quo to warn Taipei and Beijing respectively, and left a security guarantee that did not rule out intervention.
Washington's goal is very clear. It must not only prevent Beijing from attacking Taiwan unprovoked, but also prevent Taiwan from taking independent and reckless actions. The United States must always have the greatest initiative and can directly judge whether a certain party's behavior crosses a policy red line and then choose to warn it again. More than guarantees, or more guarantees than warnings. Maximizing "American interests" among the levers claimed to maintain regional stability.
U.S. President Biden once again faced the "archaeological question" of whether to send troops to defend Taiwan. No longer as brief and affirmative as the past four times, Biden's attitude this time is much vaguer, and his choice of words is even more roundabout on whether to directly send troops to intervene in the Taiwan Strait war. In fact, Biden is more likely to return to the basic stance of U.S. policy toward Taiwan, maintaining "strategic ambiguity" and alternately using warnings and reassurances to Beijing and Taipei.
Biden's speeches in the early days of his administration in 2021, from keeping his promise to Taiwan to directly stating that he would send troops to defend Taiwan that was invaded by Beijing, were questioned. The United States has completely changed its long-term ambiguous position and moved towards a clear strategic commitment to clearly commit to safeguarding Taiwan's security.
But judging from the verbatim transcript released by Time magazine, Biden came prepared this time. First of all, when reporters asked Biden to explain whether he meant "sending troops to Taiwan" when he said that he would "use the U.S. military to defend Taiwan" several times in the past, this time he asked to see the situation and mentioned that he reiterated to Xi Jinping that he follows the principles of previous U.S. presidents. way of doing.
Biden continued: "The United States does not seek Taiwan's independence, and if China unilaterally changes the status quo across the Taiwan Strait, the United States will not fail to defend Taiwan."
Biden's "will not fail to defend Taiwan" here is no longer as proactive and clear as in the past few speeches. He also has to add the proviso that "China will unilaterally change the status quo." Returning to the United States, he "does not support Taiwan's independence and opposes either side of the Taiwan Strait." long-term policy to "one-sidedly change the status quo".
Regarding whether to send troops to Taiwan and whether to launch strikes from the bases of US military allies in the Indo-Pacific, Biden's answer is intriguing. He did not rule out using US military power, but said, "There is a clear difference between this and sending land, sea and air forces."
Biden's remarks completely echoed the U.S. position over the past two years of Russia's aggression in Ukraine. The United States provides money and military strength to Ukraine, but it does not send troops to Ukraine to participate in the war. The United States is very clear about its role and interests. There is a "clear distinction" between "assisting in the defense of Ukraine" and "preventing itself from direct conflict with Russia." The United States will never allow itself to cross and become involved in a conflict.
The current situation in Ukraine does not rule out being a challenge to Taiwan in the future. However, although Biden did not explain the necessary conditions for sending troops to intervene in the Taiwan Strait conflict, he did not completely rule out the possibility and return to the policy basics of the past with strategic ambiguity.
In addition, the US position has always been that it does not support Taiwan's independence, but Biden said this time that the United States does not "seek" Taiwan's independence. When did the pursuit of independence become an American goal? What Biden may mean here is that there is no room for Taiwan independence within the U.S. policy framework, and it will not support a Taiwan independence regime.
Comparing Biden's latest statement, he used the context of Taiwan's independence and one-sided change of the status quo to warn Taipei and Beijing respectively, and left a security guarantee that did not rule out intervention.
Washington's goal is very clear. It must not only prevent Beijing from attacking Taiwan unprovoked, but also prevent Taiwan from taking independent and reckless actions. The United States must always have the greatest initiative and can directly judge whether a certain party's behavior crosses a policy red line and then choose to warn it again. More than guarantees, or more guarantees than warnings. Maximizing "American interests" among the levers claimed to maintain regional stability.
