Taiwan media article: The United States has no reason to turn to "strategic clarity."

An article published on The Taiwanese wind media website on December 30 said that the United States had no reason to turn to so-called "strategic clarity." The author is Zhou Yongqin. The full text is excerpted below:

Richard Haas, president of the Institute of Foreign Affairs, an American think tank, recently claimed that Washington's "strategic ambiguity" policy has come to an end and must be turned to "strategic clarity", which has aroused heated discussion on this controversial issue that has been controversial for nearly 30 years.

Haas wrote an article in 2020 calling for so-called "strategic clarity", which caused a fierce debate. After Biden took office, although from time to time there were remarks or actions that jumped out of the framework of the one-China policy, the policy did not change after all. This is more like "gradual clarity" in "strategic ambiguity" than some commentators think that Washington is swinging toward "strategic clarity."

From a few points of view, it can be inferred that in the short term, Washington still has no reason to turn to "strategic clarity".

First, the US side has to bear Beijing's possible reaction to openly "crossing the red line". The confrontation and tension in the western Pacific ocean cannot tolerate any misjudgment of fire.

Second, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and other countries may not care about being involved in conflicts in the Taiwan Strait because of "strategic clarity" (and do not fight at their own doorstep anyway), but important forces in the region such as South Korea and ASEAN will not hold the same idea. Will "gangs" still work so well in wartime?

Third, the Taiwan authorities are afraid of provoking the situation, that is, what Beijing calls "self-respect by coercing the United States." "Strategic clarity" is not a "green light" for the Taiwan authorities to change the status quo, but it is only feared that the Taiwan authorities will be more reckless and provocative, and "strategic clarity" may justify the "Taiwan independence" behavior and make it truly take a "dangerous step" to change the status quo.

Finally, the key to the success of so-called "deterrence" lies in intention and ability, and intention is supported by ability. Haas asked Washington to strengthen its military presence in the Western Pacific, which meant either diverting resources from other theaters or adding more defense budgets. But on the one hand, Biden tried to slash the defense budget after taking office, and on the other hand, does the United States have the ability to deal with two regional conflicts at the same time?

"Strategic clarity" also extends to another question: The Americans' operational philosophy lies in "reducing casualties" and "shortening the war", and are they ready for a large number of sacrifices in the ground conflicts with the highest casualties and the most mindful americans? In the extremely expensive modern war, is there enough and sustained logistical energy to provide the US military?

So there's no reason for Washington to weld the maneuverable lever to death with costly military commitments.

The Taiwan authorities need to understand that even Haas, who strives for "strategic clarity," stressed: "The United States must continue to adhere to the one-China policy, reiterate its support for 'Taiwan independence,' and avoid taking symbolic moves to enhance Taiwan's status." "This is the unquestionable American consensus.

Source: Reference News Network