[ad_1]
The top White House official in Asia has warned that any statement that the United States would defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack would lead to “significant disadvantages.”
Washington has maintained a policy of “strategic ambiguity” over Taiwan for decades, designed for this purpose. discourage Taipei to declare independence and for China to take military action to seize the country. Beijing claims democratic Taiwan as part of its sovereign territory.
Some experts have called for a shift towards “strategic clarity” make Beijing clear that the US would defend Taiwan. But Kurt Campbell, the Asian Tsar of the White House, said the change was risky.
“There are some important disadvantages. . . strategic clarity, ”he told the Financial Times Global Boardroom Conference on Tuesday.
“The best way to maintain peace and stability is to send a truly consolidated message that involves diplomacy, innovation in defense and our own capabilities to Chinese leadership, so that they do not contemplate any ambitious and dangerous step in the future. “.
From China aggressive military activity and the growing defense capacity justifies a stronger message from Washington, according to some analysts. But others have claimed the answer could trigger an unwanted outcome. China has warned the US about crossing a “red line” over Taiwan.
Avril Haines, director of national intelligence, recently said that China would consider a policy change “profoundly destabilizing”. “It would solidify Chinese perceptions that the United States is determined to limit China’s rise, even through military force, and would likely cause Beijing to undermine U.S. interests around the world,” he said.
But David Sacks, a member of the Foreign Affairs Council who supports change, said there was “a significant disadvantage in strategic ambiguity,” which was created at a time when China did not have the military capability to assault Taiwan.
“U.S. policy must recognize that deterrence is eroding and must adapt to China’s growing capabilities,” he said. “China’s actions in Hong Kong show that Western criticism and sanctions are not enough to shape its behavior. Strategic clarity would convey to China the seriousness with which we raise the question of Taiwan’s future. “
Concerns have risen as has China flew more warplanes in the Taiwan Air Defense Identification Zone over the past year, in what has become an almost routine activity. Last month, the People’s Liberation Army sent a record 25 military aircraft to the southwestern corner of Taiwan’s ADIZ.
Analysts said the flights were aimed at intimidating Taipei and depleting its air force, which is forced to revolt the planes in response.
In his last appearance in Congress in March before retiring as head of U.S. forces in the Indo-Pacific, Philip Davidson said he was concerned that China might attack Taiwan in six years. He also said that while strategic ambiguity had helped preserve the status quo for decades, “these things should be routinely reconsidered.”
Days later, a senior US official told FT that the administration thought China was flirting with the idea to take military action.
Asked whether the world should prepare for a possible conflict over Taiwan, Campbell downplayed the risk, saying Chinese military activity was an effort to “turn the screws” on Taiwan.
But Elizabeth Economy, of the Hoover Institution think tank, who spoke alongside Campbell, said she was increasingly concerned.
“One thing you can learn about Xi Jinping by reading all his speeches and following his actions is that there is a pretty strong correlation between what he says and what he does,” Economy said.
“He spoke of the need to reunite with Taiwan sooner rather than later. He has not given up the use of force. . . We must take very seriously the threat that overconfidence can be had and that its military will become overconfident ”.
Ryan Hass, a Chinese expert with the Brookings Institution think tank, said Campbell’s statement was important because there were “few problems.” . . on which the precision of the language has more consequences than Taiwan ”.
“Campbell’s reiteration of the long-standing policy indicates that firmness and firmness will continue to be the agenda to address Taiwan’s issues,” Hass said. “His comments should limit the autonomous future of Taiwan’s policy on the part of U.S. officials.”
Follow Demetri Sevastopulo on Twitter: @Dimi
[ad_2]
Source link
