Biden Pledges To Protect Taiwan, but There’s Still a Bottom Line

Published in United Daily News
(Taiwan) on 25 October 2021
by Chen Yixin (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Matthew McKay. Edited by Michelle Bisson.
At a town hall meeting in Baltimore on Oct. 21, President Joe Biden said the United States would fulfill its promise to defend Taiwan if it were invaded. In response, the office of President Tsai Ing-wen stated, “We will not bow to pressure, and we will not act impulsively when we have support.” However, the Taiwanese should not be lulled into thinking that Biden’s strategic reassurance is unconditional or unlimited.

When the United States handles a crisis in the Taiwan Strait, government advisers commonly look for analogous situations or cases in the past for policy reference, and advance and analyze policy options before presenting them to the president for a final decision. In 1996, when the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis broke out, U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher, National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, Secretary of Defense William Perry and others convened first with President Bill Clinton, only making a final decision at the very end. Future situations may be similar, and of course, presidents may themselves chair a meeting of the National Security Council in response to any crisis.

In this instance, CNN asked Biden to reaffirm his security commitment to Taiwan. In late August, with the United States having withdrawn from Afghanistan and Biden’s approval ratings at the point of collapse, he let slip unwittingly that if Taiwan were to be invaded, the United States would respond pursuant to NATO Article 5. As the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty expired at the end of 1979, such strategic reassurance is both fairly appropriate and also more realistic.

It is worth noting that White House officials were not alone in saying that the United States’ policy with respect to Taiwan remains unchanged. U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who was abroad attending meetings at NATO headquarters in Belgium, also conveyed from across the Atlantic that the United States would assist Taiwan in defending itself, and that the United States would continue to abide by the One-China policy of opposing any unilateral changes to the status quo.

The main reason for the administration’s scramble to clarify policy was that many people questioned whether Biden’s reassurance to Taiwan represented a shift in U.S. planning from “strategic ambiguity” to “strategic clarity.” Despite the clamor among U.S. academic and political circles advocating for change, it is unlikely that the United States will stray from its position.

First, a policy of strategic ambiguity is most in keeping with the United States’ national interests, as this allows the president full discretion with regard to deploying troops should Taiwan need rescuing, and the extent to which the U.S. should defend Taiwan.

Second, if the United States were to adopt strategic clarity, it would be nothing short of unreasonable to force the U.S. to deploy their troops, even if Taiwan provokes the Chinese mainland through its policies or actions.

Third, the United States is a great believer in the strategy of never letting your opponent know what you’re going to do or what you’re not going to do because the only way to force your opponents to think twice before acting is to keep them out of their depth.

Fourth, strategic ambiguity is not entirely a bad thing for Taiwan. Beijing will not lightly deploy troops if it is uncertain about what Washington will do.

Seen this way, Biden’s strategic reassurance to Taiwan is not some blank check for our leaders to fill in — and it is certainly not for President Tsai to decide whether or not to act impulsively!


拜登承諾護台 仍有底線
2021-10-25 04:53 聯合報 / 陳ㄧ新/淡江大學外交與國際關係學系榮譽教授(台北市)

美國總統拜登21日在電視節目上針對「若中國攻擊台灣,美國是否會捍衛台灣?」的問題時,兩度回應說,「對,我們有此承諾」,首度打破戰略模糊。路透

美國總統拜登廿一日在巴的摩爾市民大會指出,台灣若遭侵略,美國將履行保衛台灣的承諾。總統府則以「遇到壓力不退縮,得到支持不冒進」作為回應。但是,國人千萬不要以為拜登對我國的戰略再保證是無條件或沒有底線的。

美國處理台海危機時,通常由幕僚找出以往類似情況或案例供決策參與者參考,提出政策選項並分析利弊得失,再呈請總統做最後定奪。一九九六年台海危機爆發時,美國就是先由國務卿克里斯多福、白宮國安顧問雷克、國防部長培里等人開會,最後柯林頓總統拍板定案。未來情況也可能大同小異,當然也可能由總統親自主持國安會議因應危機。

這次拜登是在CNN主播詢問之下再度重申他對台灣的安全承諾。八月下旬美國撤兵阿富汗,信用瀕臨破產,拜登情急下脫口說出「台灣若遭侵略,美國將以北約模式回應」。由於美台協防條約早在一九七九年底廢止,因此這次對台戰略再保證較為精準,也更具實際意義。

值得注意是,不僅白宮官員表示美國對台政策不變,遠在比利時北約總部開會的美國國防部長奧斯丁也隔洋喊話,表示美國將協助台灣自我防衛,並說美國將繼續信守反對任何一方片面改變現狀的「一中政策」。

他們迫不及待地做出澄清,主要就是不少人質疑拜登的對台再保證是否代表美國計畫揚棄「戰略模糊」走向「戰略清晰」。儘管美國學政界人士中主張改變的聲浪甚囂塵上,但美國卻不太可能改變此一立場。

首先,「戰略模糊」最符合美國國家利益,因為總統可以對是否出兵馳援台灣或捍衛台灣到什麼程度,採用自由裁量權。

其次,若是美國改採「戰略清晰」,則即使台灣在政策或行動上挑釁大陸,而美國卻仍必須被迫出兵,殊不合理。

第三,美國深信「永遠不要讓對手知道你要做什麼,也永遠不要讓對手知道你不要做什麼」的策略,因為只有讓對手莫測高深,對手才會三思而行。

第四,「戰略模糊」對我國也不是一件壞事。北京只有在不確定華府會做什麼反應的情況下,才不會輕易對台用兵。

由此觀之,拜登對我國的戰略再保證絕不是任由台灣領導人填寫的空白支票,而是否「冒進」也不是蔡英文總統說了算!
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Israel: Epstein Conspiracy: When the Monster Has a Life of Its Own and Rises Up

Canada: Negotiating a Business Deal without Trust

Japan: The Role of a Diplomatic Attitude To Maintain the International Order

Turkey: Conflicting Messages to Syria: US Supports Integrity while Israel Attacks

Topics

Spain: The New American Realism

Mexico: Trump vs. Cuba: More of the Same

Ireland: US Tariffs Take Shine Off Summer Economic Statement

Israel: Epstein Conspiracy: When the Monster Has a Life of Its Own and Rises Up

Spain: Another Threat from Trump

Canada: Negotiating a Business Deal without Trust

Taiwan: Tariff Showdown Doesn’t Shake Confidence

Related Articles

Poland: Putin’s Biggest Mistake — Will Trump Force Him to the Negotiating Table?*

Taiwan: Trump Stacks the Deck: EU-Canada Trade Talks Forced To Fold

France: Trump and the African Presidents: The Weight of Words, Shock of the Image

Germany: Trump’s Tariffs: China Acts, Europe Reacts

Indonesia: Trump Needs a Copy Editor