Source: World Wide Web
On August 20, 2021, Ma Xiaoguang, spokesman for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, answered reporters' questions.
Ma Xiaoguang Data Map
Reporter asked: The DPP authorities are grateful for the remarks made by the US leader on Taiwan-related issues in recent days. Any comments on this?
Ma Xiaoguang said that the Foreign Ministry has made clear its solemn stand on this. What needs to be pointed out is that the DPP authorities have constantly carried out "independence" provocations and vainly tried to use external forces to embolden their "Taiwan independence" acts, and the result can only be to push the Taiwan people into disaster. We are warning the DPP authorities to immediately stop all kinds of acts of seeking "independence," otherwise we will be severely punished.
Previously reported [Editorial: Whether it is a "slip of the tongue" or not, what Biden said is empty words]
U.S. President Joe Biden responded to questions about "America's unreliability" wednesday in an interview with ABC, saying, "The United States has made a sacred commitment to Article 5 [of the North Atlantic Treaty], and if anyone invades or takes action against our NATO allies, the U.S. side will respond, as will Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan." This is simply not comparable (with Afghanistan)."
LinkING NATO Article 5 to Taiwan? This is a statement that the United States has never officially had. American scholars quickly suspected that Biden had "said the wrong thing." Immediately after that, a senior US official told Reuters that "the US policy on Taiwan has not changed." US State Department spokesman Price also pulled the US statement on the Taiwan issue back to the "standard statement" at the press conference. Most of the major Western media have shown the tone of "reversing" what Biden said by US officials.
The Taiwan side expressed "thanks" to Biden, but most of them were wary of whether Biden may be casual and whether this indicates that the United States adjusted its Taiwan policy, and they generally did not dare to consume and exalt Biden's words.
Biden Infographic
International public opinion clearly suspects that Biden was "confused" when he said the above, or that he was "panicked" in order to get rid of the current collapse of the Afghan withdrawal. Generally speaking, if there is a major policy adjustment in the United States, it must first be let loose by anonymous officials or relatively low-level officials, and think tanks and public opinion will follow up the hype. The president's provocative policy of throwing out questions from reporters is inconsistent with the american tradition of political manipulation and does not match the performance of the Biden administration since taking office.
Biden has lost all face in the afghan situation, and has been violently attacked by US public opinion for several days and reprimanded by public opinion of allies. This is undoubtedly the most uncomfortable moment since he took office, and he is very eager to save face for himself, which is not only related to his personal reputation and support, but will also have a direct impact on the Democratic elections in next year's midterm elections.
Regardless of why Biden says this, we must point out that those words are empty words that are neither supported by the real strategic determination of the United States nor supported by the actual military preparations of the United States. Biden has just fled from Afghanistan, and neither he nor the current U.S. administration has the credibility to convince the outside world that they have the will and ability to push the United States to make decisions that are likely to quickly lead to a full-scale showdown with China in the Taiwan Strait.
Nato Article V should only apply to NATO members, Taiwan Mo said that there is no alliance treaty with the United States and NATO, and all NATO countries, including the United States, have only nominal "unofficial relations" with Taiwan. Do those countries agree to make NATO countries shoulder the military obligation to "protect Taiwan" together with the United States? So many have questioned whether Biden is clear about what he is talking about when he invokes NATO Article 5 to talk about his obligations to Taiwan.
China will never accept Biden's verbal threats, and its military prowess and national will are strong enough to make us defy his claims. The United States has always maintained "strategic ambiguity" on the Taiwan Strait issue, including whether the United States will send troops when there is a war in the Taiwan Strait. However, not only the United States, but Chinese mainland have also maintained a certain degree of "strategic ambiguity," for example, we have declared that the two sides of the strait must be reunified, but have not announced a timetable and method of reunification. The same is true for Taiwan. If the US side declares "protecting Taiwan by force," it will break the "status quo in the Taiwan Strait," the mainland will certainly make tit-for-tat strategic adjustments in the Taiwan Strait, and the Taiwan Strait will enter a new period of unprecedented high-intensity games.
Is Mr. Biden ready for this? Is his ruling team ready? Is the current strength of the U.S. military in the western Pacific enough to cope with the coming storms? Did they assess how many soldiers the U.S. army would die if the war broke out? Have they thought about what it means to fight a nuclear power to the death over each other's core interests?
A very interesting question is, if everyone abandons the "strategic ambiguity" and allows the situation in the Taiwan Strait to develop in a free-fall manner, in the end, which side's heart and nerves will not be able to bear Chinese mainland, the United States and Taiwan?
We are here to warn the DPP authorities that Hugh is going to jump into a mouthful of phlegm that President Biden spat out. The United States cannot "protect" Taiwan, and what they are really interested in is to encourage Taiwan to confront the mainland and use Taiwan's strength to contain the mainland's development. They want "Taiwan to fight for itself," more precisely, "Taiwan to fight for the United States," not for the United States to fight for Taiwan. If the Taiwan authorities are blinded and cross the red line of the "Anti-Secession Law" under the erroneous signal sent by the US side, they will surely become victims of US strategic interests and move toward destruction.