![]() ![]() The crucial issue here is a disjuncture between the moral grounds for adopting less ambiguous commitments to Taiwan and the continuing strategic utility of ambiguity if the core US objective is avoiding war with China. For others, however, ‘strategic clarity’ is unnecessarily provocative, as it would effectively extend a security guarantee over a territory that Beijing views as an ‘integral’ part of the ‘motherland’, and militarily unsound given wargaming that shows US forces suffering significant losses in a potential war over Taiwan. ![]() Some see this as a welcome step to frame US policy vis-à-vis Taiwan through ‘strategic clarity’ rather than the ‘strategic ambiguity’ that has defined it for decades. Asked during a ‘town hall’ event in Baltimore on 22 October whether the US would defend Taiwan if it was attacked by China, US President Joe Biden stated, ‘Yes, we have a commitment to do that’. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |