Biden Commits U.S. to War for Taiwan

 

Taiwan has no mutual security treaty with the United States, nor any Article 5 war guarantee that obligates us to defend the island. The U.S.-Taiwan security pact of the 1950s was abrogated in 1979, when Jimmy Carter recognized Beijing as the legitimate government of China.

If China invades Taiwan to unify it with the mainland, the United States will go to war to defend Taiwan and send U.S. troops to fight the invaders.

That is the commitment made last week by President Joe Biden.

Asked by CBS’s Scott Pelley on “60 Minutes” if the U.S. would fight in defense of Taiwan if China invaded, Biden replied, “Yes, if, in fact, there was an unprecedented attack.”

Pelley followed up: “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.”

“Yes,” Biden responded.

As Aaron Blake of the Washington Post reports, this is “a U.S. president firmly committing to go to war.” Moreover, it is only the “latest of increasingly hawkish comments” made by Biden on the China-Taiwan issue.

For the fourth time in his presidency, Biden has said the U.S. will fight for Taiwan, though that could mean all-out war with China, which claims Taiwan as its sovereign territory and which has a growing stockpile of strategic missiles and nuclear weapons to validate its claim.

In August 2021, as Blake relates, Biden declared, “We made a sacred commitment to Article 5 that if in fact anyone were to invade or take action against our NATO allies, we would respond. … Same with Japan, same with South Korea, same with — Taiwan.”

But Taiwan has no mutual security treaty with the United States, nor any Article 5 war guarantee that obligates the U.S. to defend the island. The U.S.-Taiwan security pact of the 1950s was abrogated in 1979, when Jimmy Carter recognized Beijing as the legitimate government of China.

In October 2021, Biden was again asked: “China just tested a hypersonic missile. What will you do to keep up with them militarily, and can you vow to protect Taiwan?”

Biden’s response: “Yes and yes.”

In a follow-up, Biden was asked again, “So are you saying that the United States would come to Taiwan’s defense if China attacked?”

Biden: “Yes, yes, we have a commitment to do that.”

Yet we have no such commitment, no such obligation, though Biden appeared to be establishing one as head of government, head of state and commander in chief.

In May, Biden was asked, “Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?”

Biden: “Yes.”

Q: “You are?”

Biden: “That’s the commitment we made.”

Thus, Biden has, four times in his 20-month presidency, declared the U.S. is obligated to come to the defense of Taiwan, if China attacks, blockades or invades; and that, as president, he will honor what he believes to be a national commitment and U.S. war guarantee.

Each of the times Biden has declared that we are obligated to fight for Taiwan and he will honor that obligation, White House staff have walked back his words. There is no change in U.S. policy, unnamed officials assure the press.

U.S. policy is still presumably “strategic ambiguity” as to what we will do should China attack.

Nor is Taiwan the only site in the seas off the China coast where Biden seems to have issued a unilateral U.S. war guarantee.

Biden has said that if the Philippines seeks to retrieve its islets in the South China Sea now occupied by China, America will fight on Manila’s side. He has indicated that the U.S. mutual security treaty with Japan covers the Senkaku Islands Japan occupies but China claims.

One wonders: If China invades and seizes Taiwanese-claimed and -occupied islands within sight of the Chinese coast, and Taiwan resists, what would Biden do?

In the Nixon-Kennedy campaign of 1960, JFK called it “unwise” to take a risk of being dragged into war, which could lead to a world war, over islands like Quemoy and Matsu that were not strategically defensible.

If Beijing invaded and occupied islands a few miles right off its coast, and Taiwan resisted, would Biden send the Seventh Fleet to war with China?

The basic question raised by these Biden commitments to go to war with a China with a huge army and fleet, and in its own home region, is — why?

No U.S. president after Richard Nixon has challenged China’s claim that there is but “one China” and Taiwan “is a part of China.”

How many battle deaths, how many war dead, are we willing to sacrifice to prevent Beijing taking political control of an island of 23 million Taiwanese 6,000 miles away from the United States?

We did not fight to prevent China from imposing its control on 7 million people of Hong Kong. Why then does the independence of 23 million Taiwanese justify a U.S. war with the world’s most populous nation?

And if we fought a war with China over Taiwan, what would be our long-term strategic goal?

Independence for Taiwan?

But did we not cede that in the 1970s with Nixon’s trip to China, his Shanghai Communique and Carter’s severing of relations with the Republic of China?

 

17 replies
    • Bob
      Bob says:

      Poor people like the idea of socialism but capitalism is the best system for moral people. I saw a beggar today and donated. I gave out a whole $20 to a saxophone player. So people like myself being rich would make the world a better place… not cause all this suffering like USSR.

      • Mad World
        Mad World says:

        IMHO, both Mammonism & Marxism destroy racial identity. They are only the two sides of the same worthless Jewish coin. The only solution that works is Welfare & Warfare, called National Socialism.

      • Mad World
        Mad World says:

        PS: “Poor people like the idea of socialism but capitalism is the best system for moral people.”

        The myth that personal enrichment is “right-wing” politics is a typical Jewish misdirection. Normally, only egoists and ignoramuses can live “happily” in a society with so much poverty among the members of their own species. Property obliges social responsibility.

        It is also a Jewish myth that “poor people vote left” and “rich people vote right”. Exactly the opposite is the case. Martha’s Vineyard” is not the only example of this. Apart from a few thousand very wealthy industrialists, it is mainly the voters of left-green politics in Germany who live in the better areas and can send their children to private schools without foreigners.

        By the way, it is old hat that the political left tends to recruit its representatives from the upper class, and the political right tends to recruit its representatives from the lower class, as Italy is proving again right now.

        https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/09/29/italy-election-polling-finds-wealthiest-voted-left-working-and-middle-voted-right/

        “People like myself being rich would make the world a better place.”

        Terms like rich and poor are relative. What means rich to you might be considered poor in the eyes of other people. Moreover, the mere pretense of an unverifiable condition is still no proof of its truthfulness.

        I could claim, for example, that I am “the rich heir to a millionaire dynasty”. But the statement has no value as long as I do not disclose my identity and allow insight into my true financial circumstances.

        Moreover: “Moral” donors do not boast about their donations, but rather donate anonymously. There is also the question of whether throwing a dog a bone is a moral “gesture.” Normally, receiving an alms is rather a humiliating act.

      • Mad World
        Mad World says:

        “Poor people like the idea of socialism but capitalism is the best system for moral people.”

        The myth that personal enrichment is “right-wing” politics is a typical Jewish misdirection. Normally, only egoists and ignoramuses can live “happily” in a society with so much poverty among the members of their own species. Property obliges social responsibility.

        It is also a Jewish myth that “poor people vote left” and “rich people vote right”. Exactly the opposite is the case. Martha’s Vineyard” is not the only example of this. Apart from a few thousand very wealthy industrialists, it is mainly the voters of left-green politics in Germany who live in the better areas and can send their children to private schools without foreigners.

        By the way, it is old hat that the political left tends to recruit its representatives from the upper class, and the political right tends to recruit its representatives from the lower class, as Italy is proving again right now.

        https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/09/29/italy-election-polling-finds-wealthiest-voted-left-working-and-middle-voted-right/

        “People like myself being rich would make the world a better place.”

        Terms like rich and poor are relative. What means rich to you might be considered poor in the eyes of other people. Moreover, the mere pretense of an unverifiable condition is still no proof of its truthfulness.

        I could claim, for example, that I am “the rich heir to a millionaire dynasty”. But the statement has no value as long as I do not disclose my identity and allow insight into my true financial circumstances.

        Moreover: “Moral” donors do not boast about their donations, but rather donate anonymously. There is also the question of whether throwing a dog a bone is a moral “gesture.” Normally, receiving an alms is rather a humiliating act.

        • Weaver
          Weaver says:

          That’s partly why I like UBI, no humiliation.

          I dunno that getting rich off some war is less humiliating, nor is inheriting money. It’s nice to have enough and to have honour.

          The rich seem partly removed from reality. They’re often akin to indoor cats. And as excellent sheep they repeat what they’re supposed to repeat, partly to further ideas which benefit them but only partly.

  1. Pat Kittle
    Pat Kittle says:

    Yes, Pat Buchanan, Biden said this Biden said that…

    … we all know Brandon’s (((ventriloquists))) are running the show. How about confronting the power behind the throne?

  2. Mad World
    Mad World says:

    As an adult neurosurgeon, 6-year-old
    Kyle wants to reverse the wiring in Ja-
    red Taylor’s racist brain, though Herr
    Taylor is probably in a coffin by then.
    https://youtu.be/TGJXR-EVYVs?t=1070

    https://hollywoodunlocked.com/6-year-old-boy-wants-to-be-a-neurosurgeon-when-he-grows-up-to-operate-on-racist-brains-change-them/

    However, hormonal preparations are already
    being developed that could exert a positive
    influence on destructive “otherness” (Zygmunt
    Bauman), such as “cuddle hormone” oxytocin.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygmunt_Bauman
    https://othersociologist.com/otherness-resources/

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4779454/The-drug-cure-xenophobia.html

    But caution is advised, says Mr. “Badcock”, this variant
    could also have the opposite effect. “A human society
    without a religion or national feelings is impossible.”
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201610/the-dark-side-oxytocin

    I tested taking a double dose of oxytocin myself yes-
    terday virtually “on the living object” and the results
    were amazing. Suddenly I found my former favorite
    European classical music to be sheer unbearable noise,
    whereas I found African folklore to be outrageously
    sophisticated and richly varied “symphonic music”!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41mx0hSnefk

    • Bob
      Bob says:

      Classical music is garbage. They are not as talented as Michael Schenker with UFO. It’s not as exciting to me. I believe classical music is way over hyped in how great it is. Steve Vai has done some Paganini things and it’s much more interesting. I know Hitler admired Wagner a great deal and it’s really music for small minds ☺️ Randy Rhoads would sometimes play some pretty transcendent pieces and it’s just as important. No one will say this because it’s an unpopular opinion.

      • Mad World
        Mad World says:

        Probably our consumerist habits are to blame for the fact that we prefer “computer graphics” to oil paintings, and “rock music” to classical music, in which there was much more work and talent. A work is only valuable if it is timeless. Think of all the fleeting idiotic trends of our “modern age”, for example the bell-bottoms and hairstyles of the 70s, which we laugh about today. But the people who grew up with that stuff hold on to it like a life preserver. I don’t exclude myself from this at all, I too would have to be carried to an opera in a straitjacket.

        It’s like the modern movies based on short cutting technique and constant change of perspective, which should not let our mind to think, blatant effects, explosions etc. Today actors don’t need talent and sound training, singers now have “autotune” for poor singing. Theater actors used to have to memorize an entire script. Our brain is so flooded with stimuli that we constantly need a new dose of stimulant to feel balanced at all. Music is “the space between the notes,” they say. Today, noise replaces virtuosity. Same with the food: full of artificial flavor enhancers.

      • Weaver
        Weaver says:

        I’ve not studied music. Plato has some interesting comments on the role of music in a society. I forget if Aristotle mentions music, but he mentions plays. Those two are key to understanding culture, I expect.

        I like some classical music, but I like folk, country, folk metal, and I guess metal (Sabaton). Included in folk there is Celtic music which I fear Plato wouldn’t approve of. Regardless, I only vaguely remember his comments now.

        I actually only listen to music while exercising, for the most part. I mostly think in silence or listen to the radio news.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Classical music is garbage. … I believe classical music is way overhyped in how great it is. … No one will say this because it’s an unpopular opinion.

        No chance at all, is there, that the opinion’s utter foolishness has anything whatsoever to do with the infrequency of its expression?

  3. Bob
    Bob says:

    These corporations own everything. Even living on the smart grid, I once lived in a house that seemingly turned off the AC one summer ☺️ it was mighty strange, and I still live on it. It regularly does strange things like flow in sync with my movement. If I get up to leave… the AC will turn off. Refrigerator with built in microphones but im crazy to talk about it 😋

  4. Bob
    Bob says:

    We could just arm the japanese to help us. Yoko Ono would probably be on board 😁 the Japanese know how to handle them.

Comments are closed.