“Yes,” President Joe Biden stated unequivocally in answer to an October 2021 CNN townhall question on whether he would “vow to protect Taiwan.” Biden repeated that “yes” three more times in his full reply.
Months earlier, this president spoke of democratic Taiwan as one of our key allies that we have a “sacred commitment” to defend.
“Yes,” Mr. Biden emphatically informed a reporter back in May of this year who inquired, “Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?”
Last Sunday on 60 Minutes, correspondent Scott Pelley asked President Biden point-blank: “Would US forces defend the island?”
Again, the president replied, “Yes.”
“So unlike Ukraine, to be clear, sir, U.S. forces — U.S. men and women — would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion?” Pelley followed up.
“Yes,” answered Biden.
Handlers-R-Us at The White House have walked back each and every one of these statements by the commander-in-chief to maintain the charade of “strategic ambiguity” — the U.S. strategy of not saying quite how we will respond to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. A thoroughly silly policy.
And — come’on man! — the cat is out of the bag! Mr. Biden’s statements, as Aaron Blake wrote in The Washington Post, amount to “firmly committing to send troops to defend Taiwan if China invades.”
I hope the United States and other countries will stand — militarily — with Taiwan, and thereby prevent the Beijing bullies from snuffing out the freedom of 24 million free Taiwanese.
Strength and unity and clarity of purpose are our best weapons against war.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with DALL‑E
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
5 replies on “A Thousand Times Yes”
Paul, as we discussed over coffee in LRK. You are dead wrong on this. Just like Hong Kong. Both have for decades, been the territory of China. It’s interesting that you and claptrap Gordon Chang dance the same CIA inspired gig. How would you feel about China defending the civil liberties of disenchanted Puerto Ricans? Love Skip
Okay, Paul, indeed how would you feel about allowing the Puerto Ricans to declare independence?
I’m guessing that you’d wish them well, and hope that we’d have amicable relations, allowing travel and unrestricted trade.
I’m also guessing that you’d feel that, if the US tried forceably to stop Puerto Rican independence, you’d feel that it had brought upon itself any foreign intervention in defense of the Puerto Ricans.
If Puerto Rico seeks independence, like Cuba, more power to it. Better than it becoming the 51st welfare state.
Historically Taiwan has been a threat as a staging area for mainland invasion. But really debatable whether anyone in their right mind would want to conquer and then be responsible for administrating China nowadays.
Plainly, some imagined lines are more significant than others. But the rules of determining their significance aren’t obvious to me. When I try to get someone to explain his or her theory of the moral significance of jurisdictional boundaries, the response has usually been silence or an attack on my intelligence.
I don’t see why the US should necessarily defend the Taiwanese, but I also don’t see why the US should defend California. People who are sure that the should not defend Taiwan are most often sure that it should defend California, but don’t tell me what makes the moral difference.
What morally entitles a state to its jurisdiction? What, if anything, entitles a state to territory that was once under its control but is not longer? Obviously the Chinese state and the surrounding states cannot all be entitled to all of that were once their territories, unless these two states are merged, because they have had control of the some of the same regions at different times.
I heard a woman from Mainland China claim that the PRC was entitled to rule the nations in which the people typically spoke some dialect of Chinese,* but why would this not entitle the states of those other nations to rule all of China? Why is the US not entitled to take all of the English-speaking world? Why is Belize not entitled to do so?
— — — — — — — — — —
*The differences amongst some of the supposed dialects of Chinese are greater than the differences between Dutch and German. Calling these different languages “dialects” is an exercise in propaganda.
I hope that Taiwan — which is not part of the People’s Republic, never has been part of the People’s Republic, hasn’t been occupied by /ruled from “China” since 1895 — can successfully avoid or resist invasion/annexation.
I hope that US arms companies are permitted to sell Taiwan all the weapons it wants, and that Americans who care to volunteer to help defend it aren’t forbidden to do so.
And I hope the US government starts choosing to mind its own business instead of continually and unsuccessfully trying to be the world’s policeman.