Biden does not speak according to the script about Taiwan. This is not the first time
Joe Biden once again departs from official theses and takes liberties with journalists, writes the New York Times. The author of the article recalls that it is not the first time that the head of the White House puts his subordinates in an awkward position.
Peter Baker
Careless statements not according to the official script have already become a feature of President Biden, even though his employees have to work hard to refute them.
Maybe President Biden is not deviating from the script at all. Maybe he just doesn't care what it says.
Careless statements that diverge from official theses have already become not even a "malfunction in the system", but a feature of President Biden. On Monday, he again clearly demonstrated this when he began to scatter words that he would use force to protect Taiwan from China, which sent dozens of years of "strategic ambiguity" down the drain.
Whenever Biden says what he really thinks, the White House traditionally has to mobilize a "cleaning brigade" that will insist that he did not say what everyone heard — and even if he did, what he said still does not pull for a change in the country's policy. After that, Mr. Biden, completely unperturbed and shamelessly, goes to the journalists and steps on exactly the same rake.
Monday's statements on Taiwan were the latest example of the president simply saying what's on his mind, even if his staff will then have to go out of their way to refute his words. In March, he called Russian President Vladimir Putin a war criminal — just his opinion, not the conclusion of the court, aides hastily explained. A few days later, Biden began improvising again and at the end of his speech said that Putin "cannot remain in power" — just a remark, not a call for regime change, as his subordinates said at the time.
Moreover, since the beginning of the term, Biden has not for the first time stated that he is ready to use military measures to protect Taiwan — a promise that under other presidents was traditionally vague, so that China would be lost in guesses, since there is no direct confrontation with the United States yet. But this is the third time Biden has made such statements, and now it is even more difficult for the White House to convince everyone that "there is nothing special here."
"Biden has always been more outspoken than most politicians," says David Axelrod. He was able to see this when he worked as a senior adviser to President Barack Obama, and Biden was then vice president. "Our strength is our weakness. He is strong in the fact that he is real. But his weakness is that sometimes he is ready to tell more than his employees want," the ex-adviser added.
All this should not be surprising to those who have followed Biden's nearly half a century of work as a senator and vice president. For many years in Washington, Biden was associated with misunderstandings. He was even often called a "misunderstanding machine". Sometimes it was said with love, and sometimes with mockery.
But if the initiative of a senator or even a vice president does not entail serious consequences, then everything is different with the president. Politicians, diplomats and intelligence from all over the world are carefully studying the president's words to understand the hidden meaning and predict his next actions. Any deviation from previous comments or official statements within the framework of the political course should be strictly stipulated.
When he got to the Oval Office, Biden tried to avoid embarrassing comments, because of which he had trouble in the past. For example, he once described Obama as the first "intelligible" black presidential candidate, who is also "a brilliant, clean and nice guy."
However, Biden's spontaneous scandalous statements rather fall under the legendary definition of "misunderstanding" by columnist Michael Kinsley. "A misunderstanding is when a politician tells the truth, but so obvious that he is not supposed to tell it," the columnist wrote.
The latest such statements on Taiwan were made during a press conference between Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida during the president's visit to Tokyo. When Biden was asked about Taiwan, at first he stuck to the traditional wording. He said that American policy on Taiwan "has not changed at all", and the United States supports the island in the face of Chinese aggression. "We strongly support Japan and other countries to prevent this from happening," Biden continued, deliberately vague.
The assistants were satisfied. No accidents. But then Nancy Cordes from CBSNews got the word. She noted that Biden ruled out American military intervention in Ukraine, but would he, on the contrary, resort to "military intervention to protect Taiwan if it comes to that," the journalist asked.
"Yes,— Biden replied. "That was our promise."
The administration staff became wary.
"The idea that he can be taken by force is simply unacceptable," Biden continued, answering a question about Taiwan. — It could rock the whole region and would be similar to the events in Ukraine. This burden would be even heavier."
By that time, Biden's team realized that he had said more than necessary, and rushed to eliminate the consequences. The president's experienced subordinates immediately sketched out an explanatory statement mandatory in such cases, which emphasized that "our policy has not changed," and Biden only "confirmed" the US promise to "provide Taiwan with military means for self-defense."
But Biden's statement wasn't just about military aid. Many saw in it a hint of direct military intervention by Washington.
Biden ignored the "strategic ambiguity" of his predecessors on the issue of China and Taiwan before. Last August, when he assured allies that the US would "respond" in the event of an attack on any NATO member, he added that "the same goes for Japan, South Korea and Taiwan."
But the United States has never given Taiwan such security guarantees as Japan, South Korea or NATO partners, so the statement was perceived as important. Two months later, when asked during a big CNN press conference whether the US would protect Taiwan in the event of an attack, he replied: "Yes, we have that commitment."
Biden's improvisation in Tokyo caused mixed emotions in Washington. Some political leaders praised him for his sincere support of an ally, while others scoffed at the president's indiscipline.
"President Biden did the right thing when he said that the United States would protect Taiwan from communist China if it came to a conflict. That's the way to talk and that's the way to act," tweeted Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina.
The co-chairman of the Republican National Committee and a supporter of former President Donald Trump, Tommy Hicks Jr., on the contrary, believes that this is not courage, but incompetence. "Again, Biden's team will have to take the rap for him in front of reporters," Hicks said. "Well, he can't go abroad and not say something that his team should then refute in a few minutes. Recklessness and shame."
Donald Trump, of course, much more often than Biden, said something provocative, untested and contrary to traditional American policy. He threatened war with North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran; lashed out at American allies, Germany, Japan, Canada, and South Korea, and defended opponents like Putin.
But even those in Washington who believe that Biden has done a good job and revived a more traditional and responsible line in foreign policy are concerned about the discrepancy in the statements of Biden and his team. Some believe that assistants are framing their boss instead of confirming his comments.
"Does anyone in the White House respect the president's opinion at all?" tweeted Congressman from Illinois, Republican anti-Trumpist Adam Kinzinger. — Biden said that we will defend Taiwan, and his team again refutes the president's words! He should fire everyone who does that."
But this is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. If Biden's aides issue clarifications after his statements, they probably do so with his permission or tacit consent. But this practice has not helped prevent other incidents and, for better or worse, it is unlikely to help in the near future.
