WORLD WAR III: On China Trip, Blinken Muddies the Waters of the Taiwan Straight

Who is the Commander in Chief and who is steering US diplomacy and national defense? Why do the people behind President Joe Biden routinely walk back his statements; especially those respective to the longstanding but informal defense agreement the US has with Taiwan? Who decides if the US makes good on that informal agreement when – not if, but when – China moves on Taiwan? Does that happen in an election year so as to intercede on the electoral process once again? Will the US defend Taiwan or won’t it?

Those are all legitimate and problematic questions.

The contextual backdrop here is important and this is especially so for an increasingly more likely outbreak of World War III.

For one, the informal defense agreement between the US and Taiwan draws back to 1979 and positions the US to informally defend the national sovereignty of Taiwan without actually committing to it verbatim. This has long been the case. To learn more about the complex military alignment, read this article from May 2022.

As I first reported on in March 2021 and reviewed a year later,

Here’s the headline from Zero Hedge that captured my attention last night: “White House Says US Can Focus On Two Theaters As It Did In WWII.“ You can read the entire piece as linked below.

Here is the relevant quote that represents a stunning and alarming reversal of positions by the White House,

“With all eyes on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, President Biden’s top Asia official on the National Security Council said Monday that the US can still focus on increasing its “engagement” in the Asia Pacific to counter China.”

President Biden’s top Asia official on the National Security Council

Before putting the cards down on the table, let’s explain why this position reversal is both stunning and alarming. […]

Simply put – WE ARE BEING SET-UP FOR DEFEAT and to be handed over to communism on a platter. We are in the midst of an asymmetrical, irregular and undeclared war with China that stands a very likely chance of going hot. Moreover, the United Nations and the treaty process that would follow will deliver the United States to the global cabal orchestrating it all and to the CCP and China. It’s why Cloward-Piven is in full effect with the objective of rendering the U.S. to Third World banana republic status in the pre-hot war phase designed to soften the target – America and its population.

Political Moonshine

In kicking a bunch of dead horses, it’s a simple position: As a Chinese proxy, Joe Biden appears intent on dragging us into a war with China on one front and over Taiwan and with Russia on a second front over Ukraine.

It also happens to be such that China and Ukraine are the two epicenters of the Biden Crime Family’s corruption, crime and treason [primary source evidence at Marco Polo 1 2] while world war happens to be the most effective eraser of history and criminality to be found anywhere. War is the perfect cover scenario.

We have two walk-backs to scrutinize in the broader picture.

The first walk-back occurred when a National Security Council official changed the Pentagon’s position on fighting a single-front war against China over Taiwan, where the US loses in every programmed war game scenario, to a position saying the US can effectively fight on two fronts simultaneously: China and Russia.

That is as problematic as it gets.

The second walk-back occurred with this from my May 2022 article:

Biden “Misspeaks” In Vow To Respond Militarily If China Attacks Taiwan, White House Walks Back: “While on a visit to Japan to meet with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, President Joe Biden said that American troops would defend Taiwan if it came under attack from China. “You didn’t want to get involved in the Ukraine conflict militarily for obvious reasons. Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?” a reporter asked Biden during a news conference. “Yes,” Biden replied. Update(7:41am ET): Biden’s Taiwan statements are now being presented as yet another high stakes moment wherein the ageing president “misspeaks” – according to Bloomberg.”

Political Moonshine quoting Zero Hedge

First, we can’t beat China just over Taiwan.

Then we can simultaneously fight both China and Russia effectively.

Then, Biden commits to Taiwan’s defense of a Chinese invasion while those in the backdrop of Biden characterize him as having misspoken and retract his statement and commitment.

On his recent trip to China in what has been branded as a “courtesy” visit devoid of actual traction, Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that, “We do not support the independence of Taiwan,” which can be construed as being in support of China’s “One China” policy.

Blinken’s brief remarks are captured here:

https://twitter.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1670759503950651397?s=20

Respective to “One China,” the US Department of State maintains,

The United States approach to Taiwan has remained consistent across decades and administrations. The United States has a longstanding one China policy, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the three U.S.-China Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances. We oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side; we do not support Taiwan independence; and we expect cross-Strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means. We continue to have an abiding interest in peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. Consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States makes available defense articles and services as necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability -– and maintains our capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of Taiwan.

US Department of State

In November 2022 at the Politico Defense Summit, US Department of Defense official Ely Ratner said the goal of integrated deterrence is to “dissuade Chinese President Xi Jinping from thinking there’s a rapid, low-cost way in which they can execute an invasion.” 

Furthermore, Ratner said “the U.S. is committed to the defense of Taiwan and that’s spelled out in the Taiwan Relations Act.”

The nuance of Ranter’s language is having ones cake and eating it, too. Committed without commitment.

The traditional US policy on Taiwan has been carefully crafted in every way to commit to defending Taiwan’s sovereignty without committing to defending Taiwan’s sovereignty.

Haggling over terminology and the translation of it brings it to a crux: acknowledging v. recognizing.

Acknowledgement goes no further while recognition is a formal diplomatic communication.

To acknowledge something is to affirm its existence. To [diplomatically] recognize something is to formally agree to it and act accordingly.

Diplomatic recognition is defined as “the public acknowledgment by one sovereign and independent state of the existence of another sovereign and independent state.”

For example, the US recognizes the People’s Republic of China as the formal government [run by the CCP] and therefore engages in formal diplomatic relations.

To the contrary, the US only acknowledges China’s “One China” policy giving it sovereignty over Taiwan at the same time Taiwanese relations are informal.

To learn more about “One China” respective to the US and the US informal and noncommittal defense agreement with Taiwan, consider reading the article cited above and these: 1 2 3 4.

Notably, any violation of Taiwan’s sovereignty requires the President to notify Congress for the purpose of formulating the best course forward.

Joe Biden has said that course is defending Taiwan.

Antony Blinken, the US Department of State and those standing in the shadows behind Joe Biden have said that course is sticking to “One China;” and in agnostic fashion taking no side while stockpiling one of those sides with weapons and everything else.

Everything except any sort of commitment.

For the time being, we’re left with a Taiwan Straight full of warships sailing in muddied waters.

Conventional thought, logical deduction and astute analysis indicates a timeline hinging on 2024.

Meanwhile, happy sailing.

-End-