Biden’s Statement about Taiwan on 60 Minutes Changes Nothing – Strategic Ambiguity Reigns Supreme

I quote the article below from May of this year because President Biden made virtually the same statement then as he did last night, and the reporter has some insight into the President’s actions.

Whelp, Twitter is all aflutter with the beating right-wings of birdbrain Biden haters and drumpf-fluffers who are chirping about President Biden’s statement to Scott Pelley last night on 60 minutes saying that the U.S. would come to the defense of Taiwan in the case of an “unprecedented” attack by Beijing.

Case in point:

This is how WWIII starts. https://t.co/k4ymkxCFlw

— TheLibertyDude (@Liberty1Dude) September 19, 2022

No, Liberty1Dude, peace between the U.S. and China over Taiwan has been maintained for the past 80 odd years by such statements by the Commanders-in-Chief, softened by seeming contradictory voices from other figures within and without the administration.

It’s called “strategic ambiguity”.
Wiki

“A policy of deliberate ambiguity (also known as a policy of strategic ambiguity, strategic uncertainty) is the practice by a government of being intentionally ambiguous on certain aspects of its foreign policy. It may be useful if the country has contrary foreign and domestic policy goals or if it wants to take advantage of risk aversion to abet a deterrence strategy.”

This is not the first time Biden has employed this time-tested ploy, he has been on both sides of the ambiguity triangle, as a matter of fact, depending on whether his role is to be the good cop or bad…

Foreign Policy Research Institute

“During a press conference in Tokyo on May 23, a reporter asked President Joseph Biden, “Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?” The president responded with a clear answer: “Yes . . . that’s the commitment we made.” This answer sent shockwaves across the Indo-Pacific. As expected, Beijing strongly denounced the statement, claiming that Taiwan is “purely China’s internal affair that brooks no foreign interference.” Beijing is also now planning to conduct drills near Taiwan in response.

To many, Biden just upended the decades-long US policy of strategic ambiguity, in which Washington has never explicitly confirmed whether or not the United States would come to Taiwan’s defense, or under what conditions such involvement would occur. (This policy gave the United States the ability to decide on its own terms, without over-committing, how to approach a military contingency regarding Taiwan.) To others, it was just another gaffe from Biden who doesn’t quite fully understand US policy towards Taiwan.”

To others, such as me, Mr. Shattuck, this is Biden expressing ambiguity, making a statement of strength that Beijing cannot misinterpret, but allowing others to swoop in behind to soften the blow.

He provided the velvet glove himself in the early aughts, while George W. was wielding the hammer…

“Biden’s own view on this matter has evolved over time. It took decades for him to come to the conclusion that the United States has a commitment to defend Taiwan, even taking the opposite position over 20 years ago. While he voted for the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979, he criticized President George W. Bush in 2001 after Bush made remarks quite similar to what Biden has now said three times.

In 2001, Bush was asked if the United States was obligated to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack, and he responded, “Yes, we do . . . and the Chinese must understand that. Yes, I would.” He followed up by saying that he would do “whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself.” That answer inspired Biden to write an op-ed criticizing Bush’s statements. Biden wrote, “The United States has not been obligated to defend Taiwan since we abrogated the 1954 Mutual Defense Treaty signed by President Eisenhower and ratified by the Senate.” Biden added, “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.” Biden even quoted parts of the Act, saying that they did not constitute the requirement to defend Taiwan.”

You see, Libert1Dude, sometimes when your adversary is contemplating a costly, difficult, and prone to failure military adventure such as the amphibious invasion of a large island situated is a sea full of your own submarines, overhead airplanes and armadas, it can be to one’s advantage to keep them guessing as to your intentions.

So, fly away little birdie and take the rest of your MAGA magpies with you.

Adults are practicing actual Foreign Policy.