When tensions in the Taiwan Strait escalated during the past week. There is also the question of whether the United States has an “accord” to defend Taiwan militarily or not. If China decides to “invade” Taiwan
This point is interesting. Because both China and Washington insist they will maintain their “standing” unchanged.
Xi Jinping vowed to “unify the nation” in order for Taiwan to return to its “mother land”.
Despite Xi stressing a “peaceful approach”, Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen insists that Taiwan has yet to accept Beijing’s pressure.
Joe Biden insists the United States will continue to respect the “deal” it has with Taiwan since after World War II.
The United States is generally understood to have a commitment to defend Taiwan militarily if Beijing decides there is a “necessity” to “unify China” with force, as Xi Jinping had announced on several previous occasions.
But if you read the details of the laws of the United States This will see that there is something “It still needs to be interpreted” as to how much America has pledged to protect Taiwan.
This law, known as the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), was approved by the United States Congress. It was signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979 after the United States severed official diplomatic ties with Taiwan. because of open relations with the People’s Republic of China (After President Richard Nixon’s historic visit to China, who shook hands with Mao Zedong in 1972.)
In the official language of this law, it is stated that The United States will maintain trade, cultural “and other aspects” through channels that “Unofficial”
even without diplomatic relations But the United States has various informal channels. That still gives importance to this island as a country anyway
Because Nixon accepted the “One China” policy before opening ties with Beijing.
But of course, Beijing, Washington and Taiwan’s interpretations of “One China” are still different to this day.
The main point of the question is Does the US have an obligation to bring troops to defend Taiwan if China actually opens a war?
The answer is in the section mentioned. “Military Relations” of the United States with Taiwan
This sentence is important to understand the tensions in the Taiwan Strait today.
The statement was somewhat “vague” saying:
“The United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities”.
It means, “The United States will provide Taiwan with the necessary amount of defense equipment and services. To help Taiwan have the potential to defend itself.”
Asked, what is the word “needed quantity” and how?
This law states that nature and quantity of “Military equipment and services” that will be determined by the US president and Congress.
Therefore, if reading the details of this “Agreement” does not specify that if Taiwan is attacked. The United States must come to help the military.
Not as clear as Article 5 or Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which clearly states that
“If a NATO ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions if deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked…”
That means that if any NATO member is attacked by the military, it is an attack against all members. and will take the necessary actions to assist that Member State
In the case of American law, the Taiwan Relations Act is intended to be written in vague terms. to allow for interpretation according to the circumstances and necessity of each rhythm
It is referred to in international diplomacy as “strategic ambiguity”.
call it cool is “Strategy of Ambiguity”
The goal of writing this law at that time was
1. Do not encourage Taiwan to declare independence from China.
2. Do not encourage the People’s Republic of China to use force to “unify the nation” to make Taiwan a part of China.
But when I read the details of this law in depth, I gained a lot of knowledge and interpretations. interesting point
I will continue tomorrow.
.
