March 27, 2004
Oh bliss, for former woes, a thousandfold repaid...
Thinking about the previous post, if plain talk and honesty become the new fashion in the world, it will have to be ascribed to the influence of George W Bush.
There have been a number of times when his clarity and refusal to bullshit have thrilled me utterly. But one of the best, one of the sweetest, one that made me want to fall on my knees and shout PraiseGodHallelujah Delivered at Last! was in April 2001 when he torpedoed the doctrine of Strategic Ambiguity.
It was invented by our worst president, Jimmy Carter, who abrogated the 1955 treaty in which we promised to aid Taiwan if attacked. Instead, we would be "ambiguous" on the question. Carter, of course, never met a dictator he didn't like. But for the United States of America to be ambiguous between a friendly capitalist democratic nation and a brutal tyranny that has no love for us whatsoever was a disgraceful thing. Especially when the end of the Cold War nullified the original reason for the stinking thing.
Here's David Frum's description:
...Perhaps Bush's attention slipped, or more likely, perhaps he could no longer bear the sound of his own voice mouthing the State Department's platitudes. But when interviewed by ABC's Charles Gibson, he dropped the talking points and spoke with startling candor.After so many disappointments and "ambiguities," to be alive at this time is sweet recompense. "Oh bliss, for former woes, a thousandfold repaid."Gibson asked: "If Taiwan were attacked by China, do we have an obligation to defend the Taiwanese?"
"Yes, we do," Bush replied.
Astonished, Gibson pressed for clarification. He did not need to say a word, for Bush pressed on unprompted: "And the Chinese must understand that. Yes I would."
Gibson, even more amazed: "with the full force of the American military?"
And Bush gave his final answer, "Whatever it took too help Taiwan defend herself."
"Strategic Ambiguity" was dead...
I will have to take issue with your characterization of the China issue. Ambiguity between a democratic nation and a dictatorship is one thing. Ambiguity between two brutal dictatorships, but only one of which with the means to destroy us, well, that's another. If wooing China meant being less clear on the Taiwan issue, it was nevertheless a worthwhile trade. Of course, Kissinger was deft enough to do the one without having to do the other, but that was a tactical position unmaintainable without a man of his caliber in the position. (Brzezinski, I trust, attempted this and was overruled by Carter's intransience and simplicity.)
Today, the situation is far changed. Now China has the means to destroy us, and engagement may be our only option ot preven tthe country from asserting regional dominance. Every president begins with a clear international messange, often countering that of his predecessors, and just about every one gets thrown by the wayside in the name of practicality and day-to-day business. In China, we've weakened our tone over Taiwan (to our detriment, I think) in trying ot engage. But we need to return to the Kissinger days: the Chinese want trade, and we want a safe Taiwan, and that's a relationship that, though built on self-interest rather than principle, can benefit both and protect America's global position. I wrote an article on this relating to this issue and the recent Taiwanese elections here: http://www.adamsolove.com/blog/archives/000581.html.
Posted by: Adam Solove at March 28, 2004 11:18 AMOf course I ignored all sorts of things to just emphasize the thrill of some plain talk at last.
But I think simple honesty and clarity work better in the long run than logic might lead one to expect...
Posted by: John Weidner at March 28, 2004 09:36 PMWait..China has the ability to what? They may have the ability to vape Hawaii, or Los Angeles, but there is no way China could obliterate us with their CURRENT level of ICBM technology. Thanks to certain 1990's missle deals that happened under the nose of a certain US President, that won't always be the case...but to hand wring that the Chicoms are some modern yellow horde is a stretch. We could lose some cities, tragic yes...but we could end their millennia stretching civilization in 30 minutes.
Posted by: Drake at March 29, 2004 06:51 AMDrake-My only point was that the situation has changed and China is now a strategic force. Their nuclear capabilities are about on par with, say, France, but their ambition is slightly greater and at the current rate (especially with the US subject to disarmament treaties the Chinese are not) will continue to increase their importance on the regional scene.
Posted by: Adam Solove at March 29, 2004 09:57 AMReasonable to infer that. I don't think my own opinion regarding this matter is much different than your own, otherwise.
Posted by: Drake at March 29, 2004 10:05 AM
