Strategic Ambiguity
The Wall Street Journal reports Biden Says U.S. Would Intervene Militarily if China Invaded Taiwan
President Biden said the U.S. would respond militarily to defend Taiwan if China tries to take it by force, sparking uncertainty over whether the U.S. was moving away from its longstanding policy of strategic ambiguity and prompting a clarification from the White House.
Mr. Biden’s comments were met with anger from Beijing and praise from Taipei. They were also part of a pattern: In August and October of last year, the president answered questions on Taiwan by suggesting a break in U.S. policy toward the democratically self-ruled island, only to have aides jump in to say nothing had changed.
In case you might think the snip is out of context, the above is a paywall free link to the article and video.
Biden Misspeaks on Taiwan
Bloomberg reports Biden Misspeaks on Taiwan, Says US Military Would Intervene
President Joe Biden said the US military would intervene to defend Taiwan in any attack from China, comments that appeared to break from the longstanding US policy of “strategic ambiguity” before they were walked back by White House officials.
Asked during a press briefing on Monday in Tokyo whether the US would be willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan after not doing so in Ukraine, Biden said “yes — it’s a commitment we made.”
White House officials later said that Biden simply meant the US would provide military equipment to Taiwan, not send troops to defend the island if China attacks, which would constitute a landmark shift in policy.
Since taking office, Biden has repeatedly used language about Taiwan that appeared to alter policy in place since around the time the US switched diplomatic recognition to Beijing. Last year, Biden or his aides needed to clarify his remarks on Taiwan on at least four separate occasions, including his description of the island as “independent” — China’s oft-stated red line for an invasion.
Déjà Vu for a Fifth Time
Counting the four from last year, this is at least the fifth time aides had to walk back Biden statements on China.
It’s clear the President has little idea what he is saying, and it’s not just about China. This makes for a dangerous setup.
“If the US side insists on playing the Taiwan card and goes further and further down the wrong road, it will certainly lead to a dangerous situation,” said Yang Jiechi, Beijing’s top diplomat, in a warning to to National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan.
Earlier this year I proposed having aides give his speeches. But whom?
The Ideal Spokesperson
Like her or not, Jen Psaki, Biden’s former press secretary, did an amazing job at deflecting Biden’s mistakes.
And she often did so in humorous ways. Psaki would have been ideal, but she quit.
Now Biden has Karine Jean-Pierre clearly chosen for reasons other than talent.
“How does raising taxes on corporations reduce inflation?”
Peter Doocy: Biden’s “Twitter posted the other day, ‘You want to bring down inflation? Let’s make sure the wealthiest corporations pay their fair share.’ How does raising taxes on corporations reduce inflation?”
Karine Jean-Pierre: “So, are you talking about a specific tweet?”
Republicans did not like Psaki because she was very skilled at making excuses for Biden.
Like her or not, Psaki did an excellent job at what she was hired to do. In contrast, Karine Jean-Pierre is clueless.
Reading From a Script
Hello Alexa Where Are You
“Here’s something I found on the internet. Biden says ….”
Pentagon Spokesman John Kirby to the Rescue
As CNN reported, Kirby had been under consideration to replace Jen Psaki as White House press secretary, but the role ultimately went to Jean-Pierre.
This post originated at MishTalk.Com.
Thanks for Tuning In!
Please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.
Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.
If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.
Mish
Biden or his aides needed to clarify his remarks on Taiwan on at
least four separate occasions, including his description of the island
as “independent” — China’s oft-stated red line for an invasion.”