If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. You may have to register before you can post. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I disagree Arthur, if you watched the footage he is actually having a 'dementia' moment where he can't answer the reporter because the poor old twit doesn't even know where he is
Asked by a member of the audience if the United States would commit to protect Taiwan in the event of a war, Biden appeared to respond affirmatively.
“Are you saying that the United States would come to Taiwan’s defense if China attacked?” host Anderson Cooper interjected.
“Yes. We have a commitment,” Biden quickly responded.
The Washington Post, By Joseph R. Biden Jr. May 2, 2001
Words matter, in diplomacy and in law.
Last week President Bush was asked if the United States had an obligation to defend Taiwan if it was attacked by China. He replied, "Yes, we do, and the Chinese must understand that. Yes, I would."
Where once the United States had a policy of "strategic ambiguity" -- under which we reserved the right to use force to defend Taiwan but kept mum about the circumstances in which we might, or might not, intervene in a war across the Taiwan Strait -- we now appear to have a policy of ambiguous strategic ambiguity. It is not an improvement.
As a matter of diplomacy, there is a huge difference between reserving the right to use force and obligating ourselves, a priori, to come to the defense of Taiwan. The president should not cede to Taiwan, much less to China, the ability automatically to draw us into a war across the Taiwan Strait.
Comment