U.S. Indo-Pacific Policy Coordinator Kurt Campbell appeared to reject calls Tuesday (May 4) for the United States to make clear its willingness to defend Taiwan in the event of a Communist attack, saying such an approach would have “significant downsides.
Campbell said in a discussion sponsored by the Financial Times that the situation in Taiwan should indeed be a cause for concern.
Taiwan, which is seen by Beijing as a renegade province, is now facing increasing military pressure from mainland China. Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense said Chinese Communist Party military aircraft have entered Taiwan’s southwestern air defense identification zone almost daily since April, with the largest number of 25 sorties on April 12.
Following warnings from both the former and former commanders of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command that the Chinese Communist Party might use force against Taiwan, retired Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, who served as national security adviser during the Trump administration, recently told a seminar that the Taiwan Strait is now in a “moment of extreme danger.
Campbell, who served as assistant secretary of state for Asia-Pacific affairs in the Obama administration, was selected by then-President-elect Joe Biden in January as the National Security Council’s coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs. Campbell said at Tuesday’s discussion that he believes both the United States and China understand that maintaining some level of status quo on the island of Taiwan is in the best interests of both countries.
Some prominent U.S. scholars and others have called on Washington to abandon “strategic ambiguity” and instead provide more explicit security guarantees to Taiwan. When asked about this, Campbell said, “I think there are some significant disadvantages to what you’re proposing as ‘strategic clarity.'”
While U.S. law requires Washington to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself, would the United States intervene militarily to protect Taiwan if China were to attack? The United States has long pursued a policy of “strategic ambiguity” on this issue.
Last Thursday (April 29), when Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), chairman of the committee, raised the issue of “strategic ambiguity” versus “strategic clarity” and asked whether the U.S. would intervene to protect Taiwan if China were to attack. Haines testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee and asked how China and Taiwan would react if the U.S. adopted a clear commitment to Taiwan.
To this, Haynes replied, “From our standpoint, if we see the United States move from strategic ambiguity to clarity, as you say, and be willing to intervene when something might happen to Taiwan, the Chinese Communist Party would see that as very destabilizing and reinforcing the sense in China that the United States is bent on containing the rise of the Chinese Communist Party, including the use of force, which could allow Beijing to be aggressive in undermining the U.S. around the world. aggressively undermine U.S. interests. That’s our assessment.”
Senator Reid pressed the question of whether a shift in U.S. policy would lead to greater separation between Taiwan and the CCP?
Haynes replied, “I think it’s possible. I think Taiwan has already strengthened its position toward independence to some extent, and they see what’s happening in Hong Kong. I think it’s an ever-increasing challenge.”
Campbell said Tuesday that any conflict between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party should it erupt over Taiwan is unlikely to be confined to a small geographic area.
“I think it would expand rapidly and would fundamentally destroy the global economy in ways that I don’t think anyone could have predicted,” he said.
Campbell said some are concerned that the Chinese Communist Party believes it “got away unscathed” from its crackdown on democracy in Hong Kong and “may have drawn the wrong conclusions from that” when it comes to taking action against Taiwan.
The senior U.S. diplomat said the best way to maintain peace and stability is to send an integrated message to the Chinese Communist Party that combines diplomatic and U.S. defense innovations.
He added that he expects to see “pragmatic diplomatic engagement” with the Communist Party in the coming months on North Korea and other issues, as John Kerry, the president’s special envoy on climate change, and Robert Malley did on Iran. on Iran.
Campbell said the real short- and medium-term risks come from “accidents and oversights” given the geographic proximity of U.S. and Chinese Communist forces. He added that it is important to build trust between Washington and Beijing and to ensure communication in times of crisis.
Campbell said these precautions are similar to the inspections and safeguards used during the Cold War, but he mentioned that the Communist Party has been reluctant to use them.
Campbell said, “We do have a hotline, and as you know, on the few occasions that we have used it, the phone has rung for hours in an empty room.” He did not provide a detailed explanation of such instances.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who is in London for a meeting of G-7 foreign ministers, said in an interview with Financial Times editor-in-chief Roula Khalaf on Tuesday about Taiwan that the U.S. has for many years been acting in accordance with the “one-China” policy, the Taiwan Relations Act, the three communiqués and the Taiwan Relations Act. The Taiwan Relations Act, the three communiqués and the six pledges.
The chief U.S. diplomat said, “What’s very troubling, very worrisome is that Beijing seems to be taking a different approach, taking aggressive actions. I think we are committed to making sure that Taiwan has the means to defend itself. That commitment is not going to go away. At the same time, I think it would be a very serious mistake for either side to try to disrupt by force the status quo that currently exists.”
Recent Comments