Trump has suspended weapons sales to Taiwan in a move that again shows he favours potential enemies over allies, explains world affairs editor Sam Kiley
The US president is taking on his country’s policy of “strategic ambiguity” over the delicate standing of Taiwan, which China claims as its own, by tilting towards Beijing.
In Asia and Australasia, this attitude has caused quiet consternation, with Washington’s traditional friends seeking backroom reassurances from the Trump administration that he is not shifting away from the US’s well-established defence commitments.
Excuse me? “Well-established defense commitments” and “strategic ambiguity” are not terms that belong together, lol. The US has no “well-established defence commitments” to Taiwan, that’s literally the meaning of “strategic ambiguity.” “Well-established ambiguous commitments” is a new one for me.
Of course the news weeps for the momentary suspension of arms sales. Every time something risks public funds going to bombs, the pundits line up to explain how bad it is. Somehow not sending someone weapons is framed as “doing a Ukraine on Taiwan,” as though sending weapons to everyone is the default and it’s some kind of offense to not do so. If by some miracle the US ever stops sending arms to Israel or Saudi Arabia, I look forward to hearing about how whoever’s in charge is “doing a Ukraine on” them. Think of how many lives would have been saved, of only the US had “done a Ukraine on” Pol Pot or Al Qaida.
Excuse me? “Well-established defense commitments” and “strategic ambiguity” are not terms that belong together, lol. The US has no “well-established defence commitments” to Taiwan, that’s literally the meaning of “strategic ambiguity.” “Well-established ambiguous commitments” is a new one for me.
Of course the news weeps for the momentary suspension of arms sales. Every time something risks public funds going to bombs, the pundits line up to explain how bad it is. Somehow not sending someone weapons is framed as “doing a Ukraine on Taiwan,” as though sending weapons to everyone is the default and it’s some kind of offense to not do so. If by some miracle the US ever stops sending arms to Israel or Saudi Arabia, I look forward to hearing about how whoever’s in charge is “doing a Ukraine on” them. Think of how many lives would have been saved, of only the US had “done a Ukraine on” Pol Pot or Al Qaida.
Utterly absurd framing from start to finish.