Portal field news

Portal field news


🌏 | Mr. Biden declares Taiwan's defense Is it changing to US policy?


Mr. Biden declares Taiwan's defense Is it changing to US policy?

If you write the contents roughly
The United States has a policy known as "policy ambiguity" on the issues of China and Taiwan.

Tessa Wong, BBC News US President Joe Biden said at a press conference in Japan on the 23rd that China will visit Taiwan ... → Continue reading


From the news, readings, and feature articles of BBC journalists who interview in about 100 countries around the world, we select and deliver topics that are meaningful to Japanese users who are knowledgeable.

Wikipedia related words

If there is no explanation, there is no corresponding item on Wikipedia.

Policy of deliberate

Policy of deliberate(Senryakuki Ambiguity, policy of deliberate ambiguity) is the government'sForeign policyRefers to intentionally obscuring some aspects of.When the policy goals of other countries conflict with each other,DeterrenceIn policyrisk avoidanceIs valid for.It has been pointed out that such policies are dangerous because they can lead to misunderstandings about the intentions of the state and actions that contradict the intentions.


The government of the country "China" is intentionally ambiguous, including its territory.Currently, two governmentsMainland China,Hong Kong,Macau,Taiwan, Claims legal sovereignty and sovereignty throughout China, including other islands.People's Republic of China(PRC) governs mainland China in a one-party system, in Hong Kong and MacauSpecial administrative districtIs placed.on the other hand,Republic of China(ROC) isTaiwan IslandとKinmen Island,Penghu Islands,Matsu IslandTo rule and to the territory of controlTaiwanIs provided.For the background, see "Two China","One china","Chutai relationshipPlease refer to.

Foreign governments need to obscure Taiwan's treatment because of the "One China" policy of the People's Republic of China over Taiwan's political status.The People's Republic of China is pressing to recognize itself as China's only legal representative government, and most countries follow this.But in reality, most countries leave their position on the Taiwan issue at various levels ambiguous.Detail is"International relations of the People's Republic of China","Taiwan issuePlease refer to.

In the 1979 Nagoya resolutionInternational Olympic CommitteeFrom Taiwan since the agreement withOlympic gamesWhen participating in other international organizations and events, "Chinese TaipeiThe intentionally ambiguous name is used.


Saddam HusseinIt is,2003 Iraq attackPreviously, it had a policy of deliberately obscuring whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.He,United Nations Security Council resolution 687While avoiding the pursuit of UN investigation teams, Iraq tried to leave the possibility of possessing weapons of mass destruction for the people and neighboring countries (especially Iran).[1].


Israel deliberately obscures possession of nuclear weapons, a condition called "nuclear ambiguity" or "nuclear opacity."[2]..Many analysts consider Israel a nuclear power[3].

Israel also remains ambiguous about the issue of target killings and airstrikes.Initially, Israel rarely mentioned its involvement in the killing of suspected terrorists in foreign territories.but,Syrian Civil WarOutbreak, Iran andHezbollahWhen the relationship with is worsened, exceptions become more noticeable. In 2017, it officially acknowledged its involvement in missile attacks as a military role in the war.[4][5]..On the other hand, this was a rare exception because it denied any involvement in certain killings in the Syrian Civil War.


In early April 2015, the British newspaper "The TimesIn the editorial, Russia's military and intelligence sources brought out information, and in response to the warning that Russia is preparing for a nuclear exchange for a specific non-nuclear act on the NATO side, Western cooperative security policy It was said that it should be interpreted as an "attempt to create strategic ambiguity" to disturb the situation.[6].

United Kingdom

Britain is in the event of a nuclear preemptive attack that destroys the governmentBallistic missile submarineIs deliberately ambiguous as to whether or not to counterattack with nuclear weapons.When the British Prime Minister took office, he wrote to the submarine commander a "last resort letter" showing what action to take in this situation.[Source required].


From the past to the present, the United States has developed policies that use strategic ambiguity to address many issues.


The oldest and longest-running policy of deliberate ambiguity by the United States is how to defend the Republic of China (Taiwan) in the event of an attack from the People's Republic of China (Mainland China). It is a thing.This problemUS-Taiwan RelationsIs the basis ofUS-China relationsHas also become a central issue.This policy is one-sided by the leader of the Republic of ChinaDeclaration of independenceAnd the intention is to avoid both the invasion of Taiwan by the People's Republic of China. In 2001 at that timeGeorge W. BushThe United States was perceived as if it had abandoned ambiguity when the president said, "I will do anything (to defend Taiwan)."[7]..However, in 2003, ambiguous expressions were used again, such as stating that "America's policy is one China."[8].

2021 year 10 month,Joe BidenThe president said the United States is responsible for defending Taiwan if it is attacked by the People's Republic of China.[9]..However, the White House immediately issued a statement that "the president did not announce a policy change, nor did he decide to make a policy change."[10].

Political analystSalem Al KetbiIs AmericaRussia-Ukraine WarHas taken the same policy, and analyzed that it is the same for Iran after the Vienna agreement.[11].

Retribution for chemical biological attacks

Even in the context of whether the United States will retaliate against attacks using chemical or biological weapons.Gulf WarI have taken ambiguous policies in advance, such as time. It is a concept similar to "nuclear umbrella".Barack ObamaThe President announced on August 2013, 8,DamascusSuburbsGoutaFor the citizens of the villageAssadThe administration did not take a clear response to the chemical attack.On the other hand, there are opinions that it broke US policy and damaged US interests.The day before, the president said to the use of chemical weapons, "When we discovered the transportation and use of a large amount of chemical weapons not only to the Assad administration but also to other local forces, our red line. I've stated that it's a line that shouldn't be crossed. If that happens, my calculations will change, "he said, using the word" red line. "[12][13].

Nuclear possession

Since enacting the law in 1987, New Zealand hasnuclear weapons,Nuclear powerProhibiting the introduction of war means powered by the military into the countryNuclear-free zoneIt is supposed to be.Although it does not prohibit nuclear power generation, it has not been used for many years and has deep-rooted dissenting opinions, making it a de facto non-nuclear country.In this prohibited areaUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the SeaWithin 12 nautical miles based onWatersIs also included.

The US Navy's basic policy states that "we will not deploy nuclear weapons on surface ships, naval aircraft, attack submarines, and ballistic missile submarines."On the other hand, it also states that "the deployment of nuclear weapons to specific ships, submarines, and aircraft is not specified."[14]..The U.S. Navy refused to confirm that certain ships were equipped with nuclear weapons, so they were not allowed to enter New Zealand.On the other hand, the United States has New Zealand.ANZUSPartially withdrawn from.Ronald ReaganThe president describes New Zealand as "a friend, but not an ally."[15].

The United States has also tolerated Israel's policy of deliberate ambiguity in possessing nuclear weapons.IsraelNuclear Non-Proliferation TreatyBy not signing and not admitting Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, the United States is avoiding sanctions for violating its own nuclear proliferation prevention law.[16].

East West Germany

West GermanyIt is,East GermanyBreak diplomatic relations with the country that approvedHalstein principleSince the 1970s, when he abandoned the policy, he has virtually switched to a policy that recognizes the existence of East Germany, but on the other hand, he has implemented some policies that follow the principle of "one Germany."When East Germans arrived in West Germany, they were treated as West Germans, and exports to East Germany were treated in the same way as domestic trade.Strategic ambiguity was used to share the speculation of the majority of West German politicians who did not want West Germany to admit the existence of East Germany and those who did not want to admit the division of Germany.

Related item


  1. ^ "Why Did the United States Invade Iraq in 2003?”(May 2012, 10). 2022/2/20Browse.
  2. ^ Bronner, Ethan (October 2010, 10). “Vague, Opaque and Ambiguous — Israel's Hush-Hush Nuclear Policy”. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/books/14book.html?ref=bookreviews 2012/3/6Browse. 
  3. ^ "Nuclear weapons – Israel”. Federation of American Scientists. 2007/7/1Browse.
  4. ^ staff, TOI. “IDF official said to confirm attack in Syria:'First strike on Iranian targets'". www.timesofisrael.com. 2022/2/20Browse.
  5. ^ "US officials confirm Israel launched pre-dawn airstrike on Syria". NBC News. 2022/2/20Browse.
  6. ^ “From Russia with Menace”. The Times(July 2015, 4). http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article4399638.ece 2015/4/2Browse. 
  7. ^ “Bush vows'whatever it takes'to defend Taiwan”. CNN TV. (April 2001, 4). http://edition.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/25/bush.taiwan.03/ 2007/2/5Browse. 
  8. ^ “Bush Opposes Taiwan Independence”. Fox News(July 2003, 12). http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/12/09/bush-opposes-taiwan-independence.html 2016/2/18Browse. 
  9. ^ "China vows no concessions on Taiwan after Biden comments" (English). AP NEWS (September 2021, 10). 2021/10/22Browse.
  10. ^ “Biden Said the US Would Protect Taiwan. But It's Not That Clear-Cut.”(July 2021, 10). https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/22/us/politics/biden-taiwan-defense-china.html 
  11. ^ "US will work with Israel on tougher Iran stance in wake of Vienna" (English). The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. 2022/1/10Browse.
  12. ^ Wordsworth, Dot (June 2013, 6). “What, exactly, is a'red line'?”. The Spectator magazine. 2013/7/30Browse.
  13. ^ Kessler, Glenn (October 2013, 9). “Analysis | President Obama and the'red line' on Syria's chemical weapons” (English). The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/06/president-obama-and-the-red-line-on-syrias-chemical-weapons/ 2018/6/14Browse. 
  15. ^ Lange, David (1990). Nuclear Free: The New Zealand Way: Books: David Lange, Michael Gifkins. ISBN 0140145192 
  16. ^ Cohen, Abner; Burr, William (December 2016, 12). “What the US Government Really Thought of Israel's Apparent 1979 Nuclear Test”. Political. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/1979-vela-incident-nuclear-test-israel-south-africa-214507 


  • Eisenberg, Eric M (2007), Strategic ambiguities: Essays on communication, organization, and identity, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .


Back to Top