Early
Northern Remember
Han Yonghong
Kurt Campbell, the highest official in charge of Asian affairs in the United States Biden government in charge of Asian affairs, explicitly rejected the opinions of the United States publicly announced that the mainland's military officer will cooperate to defend Taiwan and have some recent disturbances.It was a direct answer to whether Taiwan was "strategic clear" or "strategic vague".
When asked if the United States should provide a clearer security guarantee for Taiwan, Campbell said directly that the so -called "strategic clear" has some significant flaws.He warned that once a military conflict occurred in the Taiwan Strait, it was unlikely that it was limited to a small geographical range, but to quickly expand and fundamentally destroy the global economy in a way that unpreparedly predicts.
The so -called "strategic vagueness" of the United States to Taiwan in the diplomatic community refers to the United States based on the domestic law -the Taiwan Relations Law passed in 1979, promising to provide Taiwan with defense materials and services that keep them sufficient self -defense capabilities. At the same timeChina launch a military attack on Taiwan. The United States will interfere with non -peaceful means such as sanctions, but it is not necessarily whether troops are sent.This acknowledges to recognize "one China" and support Taiwan's self -defense is "strategic blur."Campbell maintained this position on Tuesday and emphasized that the United States issued a comprehensive signal of Beijing's issuance of diplomatic and US defense innovation, which is "the best road to maintain peace and stability."
His speech continued to test the American elites and made a conclusion of a fixed conclusion, but this topic was obviously far from the end.
Since last year, due to rising doubts about China, fierce Hong Kong society's struggle to land with the National Security Law, coupled with the continued deterioration of cross -strait relations, the domestic anti -China momentum has risen, and the sound of Taiwan has strengthened.Think tank scholars and even the members of the signs have successively advocated giving up the vagueness of Taiwan's strategy, which is particularly obvious during the final period of Trump's administration.
For example, Richard Haass, chairman of the US Foreign Relations Commission, and his colleague David Sacks jointly wrote in September last year, emphasizing that the United States must support Taiwan "without fuzzy".
This kind of remarks reflect the anxiety of American elites for the strong military capabilities of China.According to reports, the Pentagon has carried out 18 soldiers on Mainland China on the Taiwan issue, and the side of the mainland has repeatedly won.At the beginning of March this year, Davidson, commander of the Indo -Pacific Command in the United States, asked for a six -year schedule of time to the PLA when he asked about the PLA.
In late March, historian Niall Ferguson wrote an article calling the United States to determine to prevent Taiwan.Ferguson warned that Taiwan may become the "Suez Canal in 1956" in the United States. Britain lost its actual control over the Suez Canal because of the international image.Then the United States will also bid farewell to the era of its leading Indo -Pacific region.Ferguson also dramaticly criticized the United States as a fox that was lost, and the mainland was a hedgehog with a lot of knowledge.Last week, the cover of British economists reported this: "Taiwan -the most dangerous place on the earth."
In contrast to the "Strategic Strategies", there is the "abandoned theory" that George Washington University professor Charles Glaser is thrown again.Glase wrote at the end of April to criticize the United States' choice to avoid difficulties, which is to end his commitment to Taiwan.He claims that Taiwan is not a key interest in the United States. The United States supports Taiwan for ideology and humanitarianism, but the risk of defending Taiwan is very high. The priority of the United States in Asia Pacific should be to maintain Japan and South Korea, not Taiwan.
From the latest speech of Campbell this week, whether it is a clear strategy or a "abandonment", it is not the first choice of the Biden government. Maintaining the current strategy of the United States and the current situation of the Taiwan Strait is the interests of the United States.Where.But the United States has a tricky issue on the front, that is, the status quo is becoming more and more difficult to maintain.
Bynden government knows that if the United States makes a clear security guarantee for Taiwan, it will anger Beijing earlier, and may also encourage Taiwanese politicians to adopt adventurous Taiwan independence behaviors for votes.Between the war and Taiwan's announcement of independence, the former in Mainland China, Beijing, was absolutely clear in this regard. Once China and the United States started war in the Taiwan Strait, it may be the fuse of the World War.On the other hand, if the United States issues vague signals, Beijing will suspect the United States' commitment.
In addition to the judgment of the situation in the situation, the more critical question is that who has the strength and public opinion foundation of "fighting for Taiwan"?Does the United States have enough public opinion and financial resources to support it for the military cost to prevent Taiwan?Whether it is strategic or blurred, the premise is that the United States must have an overwhelming strength.
The Bayeng government announced the national security strategy guide during the transition period in March, and the formal national security strategy and policies against China are still brewing.Many analysts believe that a major debate on Taiwan's policy is about to start, and now it is just a prelude.This also shows that the growth of mainland military power and the strengthening of deterrence against Taiwan have made the United States feel enough to shock and dilemma.
