On COI #325, Connor Freeman and Kyle Anzalone break down the negotiations to save the Iran Nuclear Deal.
Biden once again gave some ill-advised answers on Taiwan in an interview with 60 Minutes:
"But would U.S. forces defend the island?" Pelley asked.
"Yes, if in fact there was an unprecedented attack," Mr. Biden said.
"So unlike Ukraine, to be clear, sir," Pelley said, "U.S. forces, U.S. men and women would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion?"
"Yes," the president said.
This is the fourth time that the president has wrongly said or implied that the U.S. has a security commitment to defend Taiwan. By itself, it would be an unfortunate mistake, but it is part of a pattern of gradually eroding the status quo over Taiwan in what seems to be an arbitrary and careless way on the assumption that the U.S. can get away with making unilateral changes without serious consequences. The danger of repeatedly stating a willingness to go to war over Taiwan is that the Chinese government may conclude that it needs to take more aggressive measures in response, and by severely undermining the status quo that has kept the peace for decades the president is making war more likely.
This would be unwise at the best of times, and it is even more so when the U.S. is in such a poor position to make good on the president’s invented commitment. The U.S. is already overstretched as it is, and an additional security commitment that could involve the U.S. in a major war puts the U.S. in the bad position of making a promise it can’t honor. The hawkish solution to close the gap is to throw even more money at the Pentagon and to engage in a massive military buildup, but the better solution is not to overreach with unnecessary security guarantees in the first place.
The U.S. is not obliged to fight for Taiwan, and U.S. officials should not act and talk as if it is. The president has no authority to take the U.S. to war on his own, and unless U.S. territories or forces came under attack as part of a Chinese invasion he could not legally send them into an ongoing conflict without Congressional authorization. The decision of whether the U.S. should fight for Taiwan is not the president’s alone, and we should not tolerate a warped understanding of war powers that pretends that it is. Choosing to fight China for a non-ally ought to be unthinkable, but if it is going to be considered as an option it has to be debated and voted on by the people’s representatives. Maybe Congress would vote overwhelmingly in favor of such a motion, and maybe they wouldn’t, but it is unconscionable that a decision of this magnitude would be left to any one person.
Just as worrying as Biden’s willingness to commit to a war with China over Taiwan were his remarks about Taiwanese independence. Biden said:
We agree with what we signed onto a long time ago. And that there’s one China policy, and Taiwan makes their own judgments about their independence. We are not moving – we’re not encouraging their being independent. We’re not – that – that’s their decision.
@POTUS’ comments are dangerous, even if not an official change in policy (per @WhiteHouse clarification). More explicit here than in previous gaffes is the suggestion that the US would send troops to fight for Taiwan, regardless of what Taiwan does.
Not supporting Taiwan independence is longstanding US policy. But this new combo (a pledge to send troops + decisions about independence are Taiwan’s) suggests an unconditional commitment, one that will strengthen perceptions that the U.S. is issuing Taiwan a blank check.
Daniel Larison is a weekly columnist for Antiwar.com and maintains his own site at Eunomia. He is former senior editor at The American Conservative. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, World Politics Review, Politico Magazine, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter.
The Trib’s editorial: "Ukraine’s counteroffensive succeeds" is positively ecstatic about the Ukraine counteroffensive retaking their Kharkiv Region.
The Chicago Tribune uses this singular victory in the 7 month Russian offensive as foreshadowing a possible Ukrainian victory in the war. But the Trib omitted that the 1,000 square miles recaptured represents just 2% of the near one fifth of Ukraine under Russian control. At a 2% success rate, that would require 49 more offensives to oust Russia.
But the real issue isn’t who’s winning in the moment. It’s how to stop a war with no military end in sight, and the specter of nuclear confrontation looming. That is only possible with a negotiated settlement that provides cover for both sides to accept a truce and pace treaty.
Human rights defenders on Friday welcomed a move by Chile’s progressive president to put off accepting the new Israeli ambassador’s credentials in response to the killing of a Palestinian teenager earlier in the day.
A spokesperson for the Chilean Foreign Ministry confirmed to Reuters that the decision to delay a meeting between President Gabriel Boric and Israeli Ambassador Gil Artzyeli was made “because of the death of a minor.”
Israeli occupation forces fatally shot 17-year-old Odai Trad Salah in the head during a Thursday morning raid in the village of Kufr Dan outside Jenin in the illegally occupied West Bank of Palestine.
According to The Palestine Chronicle, Artzyeli was inside the Chilean presidential palace awaiting his scheduled meeting with Boric when Foreign Minister Antonia Urrejola informed him that his credentials would not be accepted that day, and that the formal ceremony would be delayed until next month.
The world’s media have paid close attention to the gathering of 15 world leaders in Samarkand, Uzbekistan these past two days with particular emphasis on the ‘summit’ held by Presidents Putin of Russia and Xi of China on the sidelines of this general meeting.
Observers noted that the visit to Samarkand is the first foreign trip by XI since before the onset of the Covid pandemic and it was being undertaken precisely for the sake of face-to-face meetings with Putin, with whom he met last during the Winter Olympics in Beijing, just weeks prior to the launch of Russia’s ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine.