Straight News: US President Joe Biden responded twice to voters' questions about whether the United States will assist in defending Taiwan if the mainland attacks Taiwan, saying, "Yes, we have this commitment." Do you think this means that the US military strategy of assisting in the defense of Taiwan has moved from vague to clear?
Special Commentator Liu Heping: In fact, in my earlier comments, I repeatedly said that for several well-known reasons, one is that the United States is a rather belligerent country, and in the past hundred or so years, the United States has participated in almost all large-scale wars that have taken place all over the world; second, as the world's number one hegemon, if the United States stands idly by after a war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait, it will lose its prestige, and the United States itself believes that it cannot afford such a price; third, since the taiwan issue, The United States has been actively making military arrangements for military intervention in the Taiwan Strait war, which is even the top priority of the US military in the past two or three decades; fourth, since the Biden administration came to power, it has basically completed the deployment of military intervention in the Taiwan Strait situation at the diplomatic and strategic levels, and instigated Japan, Australia, Britain and other countries to intervene in the Taiwan Strait situation. At the same time, I also believe that the United States' arms sales to Taiwan, helping Taiwan train its troops, and helping Taiwan formulate military strategies are also military assistance in defending Taiwan. In the future, if a war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait, the United States will not only continue to do so, but will certainly intensify its efforts. Therefore, the so-called assistance of the United States in defending Taiwan is clear. Of course, this is my personal opinion, and I know that many observers deny this.
It is precisely for these reasons that I believe that the United States does not actually have any question of indecision and strategic ambiguity as to whether to intervene militarily in the Taiwan Strait, but a very clear strategy. In other words, in essence, the United States does not have a so-called strategic ambiguity on whether or not to intervene militarily in the situation in the Taiwan Strait. So, under such circumstances, why does the US side still insist that it is implementing a vague strategy? The reason behind this is that although the United States has made up its mind to intervene militarily in the situation in the Taiwan Strait, in formal and public settings, they do not admit it or do not say it explicitly. This gives a sense of strategic ambiguity.
The reason why the United States is not clear is that, first, it is afraid that if it is clear, it will tear up Sino-US relations, or it is afraid that the situation in the Taiwan Strait will break the situation and lead to the self-realization of war prophecies; second, it will make the "Taiwan independence" forces have no fear after making it clear, thus dragging the United States into the water; third, the US side believes that in terms of whether to intervene militarily in the situation in the Taiwan Strait, it will not openly make it clear and let the Chinese side guess thoroughly, and the strategic deterrent effect of this will be even greater.
All in all, I believe that the US military involvement in the situation in the Taiwan Strait is clear in substance, but vague in form and appearance. Of course, over the years, the mainland has actually been making preparations for the so-called "US military assistance in defending Taiwan."
Straight News: We saw that after President Biden acknowledged on television that the US military would assist in the defense of Taiwan militarily, US White House officials urgently clarified that President Biden did not announce any policy changes, nor did the US policy on Taiwan. At the same time, as to whether the United States will send troops to protect Taiwan, U.S. Defense Secretary Austin said that hypothetical issues will not be discussed. What kind of medicine do you think is sold in the gourd of the US side?
Special Commentator Liu Heping: I think that this performance by Biden, Defense Secretary Austin, and White House officials just shows that the US strategy of military intervention in the Taiwan Strait situation is "substantively clear and superficially vague" and has not changed in any way. If, as some commentators suggest, Biden's remarks meant that the U.S. military strategy for defending Taiwan was openly and formally moved from vague to clear, then U.S. White House officials would not have made a fuss about it afterwards, and Defense Secretary Austin would not have continued to play tai chi on the issue.
At the same time, I also believe that although Biden, as the president of the United States and the commander-in-chief of the three services of the United States, has the final decision-making power in all aspects of the internal, diplomatic, military and economic aspects of the United States, realistically speaking, many of his speeches really do not necessarily represent comprehensive and accurate official POLICIES of the United States. In particular, Biden's statement this time is not in a formal official occasion, but in a television program with the audience and voters to interact, in addition, due to the hasty withdrawal of troops in Afghanistan, Biden has suffered widespread criticism, many comments have believed that this means that once there is a war in the Taiwan Strait in the future, the United States will abandon Taiwan, in this case, whether it is to wash away their reputation, or to mobilize the enthusiasm of voters, to narrow the distance between themselves and voters. Biden will not recite the standard answer of the US government's Taiwan policy, that is, the US side will abide by the so-called "commitment" to Taiwan in accordance with the three Sino-US joint communiques on the establishment of diplomatic relations and the "Taiwan Relations Act", but will express its own opinions casually. Of course, the more such a situation, the easier it is for Biden's casual speech to leak secrets, that is, to leak the real bottom card of the US military intervention in the Taiwan Strait strategy. In other words, Biden's casual speech represents the "substantively clear" side of the US military intervention strategy in the Taiwan Strait.
On the contrary, the act of making up the pot by White House officials and Defense Secretary Austin afterwards was deliberate and recited the diplomatic rhetoric and "standard answers" that the US government wanted to express in public. From this perspective, I believe that the clarification between The White House official and Defense Secretary Austin afterwards undoubtedly represents another side of the US military intervention strategy in the Taiwan Strait, that is, "superficial and formal ambiguity."
From this, we can see that only by combining Biden's casual remarks with the clarification of the White House officials and Defense Secretary Austen afterwards can we fully see the true face of the US military intervention strategy in the Taiwan Strait and see its two sides. If we look at the two separately, it is very easy to misjudge the US strategy of military intervention in the Taiwan Strait.
Another phenomenon that deserves our attention is that in recent times, the official statements made by the US White House in public have repeated the standard answer of the US Taiwan Strait policy, that is, the vague strategy. On the contrary, when more and more officials speak in their personal names, they consciously or unconsciously reveal the real bottom card of the US Taiwan Strait strategy, that is, they threaten to intervene militarily in the situation in the Taiwan Strait. Moreover, the more turbulent the situation in the Taiwan Strait becomes, the more obvious it becomes that the us officials and individuals express their views on each other and tear each other apart. I believe that it is not excluded that the US side is singing red and white faces in such a way as to further achieve the purpose of military deterrence against China. However, these have not changed the two sides of the US military intervention strategy in the Taiwan Strait, that is, the "vagueness of clarity in substance."
Author: Liu Heping, Special Commentator of Shenzhen Satellite TV.