Let's talk about AOC, China, Taiwan, and commentators.... - Belle of the Ranch

[TexasTowelie]

Well, howdy there Internet people. It's Belle again. So, today we're going to talk about AOC, China, Taiwan, and commentators.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York received backlash from a statement she made at the Munich Security Conference about whether the US would or should protect Taiwan in the event that China moves on the island. Here's a question about the exchange.

Belle, I'd like you to defend AOC's statement on Taiwan and her unwillingness to say we'd defend it. She didn't even answer, just said she didn't want war. Okay.

So, when a reporter at the conference asked, "Would and should the US actually commit US troops to defend Taiwan if China were to move?" AOC responded with, "You know, I think that this is such a, you know, I think that this is a um this is of course a um very long-standing um policy of the United States. And I think what we are hoping for is that we want to make sure that we never get to that point. And we want to make sure that we are moving in all of our economic research and our global positions to avoid any such confrontation.”

Well, that answer was ambiguous. You're right. She as a representative didn't commit troops to a hypothetical war in which none of the conditions are known. Very, very ambiguous. I know there's a bunch of Trumpy foreign policy commentators who are pointing out that she didn't reinforce the US's long-standing commitment to go to war to protect Taiwan and that it's because she's a weak lib or whatever. They're making a big deal about this and saying it shows she isn't ready for the international scene.

Here's the thing. The US doesn't have any such long-standing commitment. But, but it was the plot of a movie. Yeah, I repeat, the US doesn't actually have a commitment to go to war over Taiwan. Since the 1970s, the US has maintained a policy known as strategic ambiguity regarding Taiwan. We intentionally do not commit to fight or say we won't commit to fight. If you have somebody talking about her non-answer as if it's surprising, they probably aren't somebody you should be getting foreign policy advice from.

The reason the US has this policy is to keep China off balance by wondering if we'd intervene and to make sure people in Taiwan don't provoke a war with China because they believe the US will intervene. If you want to crack a joke about the, you know, I think that this is such a, you know, I think that this is a um part and say that somebody who can't speak clearly shouldn't be president. Go right ahead. Nothing bad can happen. It can only good happen.

It's not like mocking her stumble would draw comparisons to the guy who brought peace between Azerbaijan and Albania. That would be a headache and you'd need acetaminophen. The question that prompted this was, "I'd like you to defend AOC's statement on Taiwan and her unwillingness to say we defend it?” She didn't even answer, just said she didn't want war. There's nothing to defend. Once she got past her stumble, her statement was 100% in line with 50 years of US policy. The fact that you thought her unwillingness to say we'd defend it was a gotcha tells me you need a different news diet. She doesn't want war. Cool. Neither do I.

Anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.