Thread by @ElbridgeColby

W all due respect to estimatable @BonnieGlaser I don't get her counterargument. She argues that we shldn't clarify we would defend Taiwan b/c "China could respond by mounting an attack." That's certainly a real risk & one we shld consider (tactically) even in move to clarity. 1/

https://twitter.com/RichardHaass/status/1309199837636833282

That implies we shld be careful b/c real risk of PRC attack. But then later: “there is little evidence that China is poised to invade Taiwan.” “Poised” is ambiguous. Capabilities clearly growing. Intent disputable, but intent can change on dime. So we shld plan they might try. 2/

Key is: If there’s real risk of China invading Taiwan, clarity removes Beijing’s doubt of US response. If there’s NOT a risk, then clarity might tick off Beijing, but a) won’t really affect Taiwan & b) what’ll they do, suppress Hong Kong? 3/

Taiwan independence issue is red herring. US has multiple levers to pressure Taiwan w/out allowing it to be taken over by China. Sanctions, etc. 4/

US has interest in Taiwan not declaring independence AND China not taking over Taiwan, no matter what Taiwan does. Reasons include key ones @BonnieGlaser point out: the island is located in the middle of the first island chain, ergo critical to defense of Japan et al. 5/

Then @BonnieGlaser seems to call for more deterrence & clarity, but blinks from implications. Worth quoting at length: “US does need to shore up its ability to deter Chinese re Taiwan…US should revise its publicly declared policy in a manner that strengthens deterrence, but" 6/

"not by issuing a statement of “strategic clarity…US policymakers could issue a warning that any Chinese use of force against Taiwan would be viewed as a threat to peace and stability and a grave threat to US. Such statement would signal US resolve w/out the downsides of..." 7/

a clear security guarantee.” Well, but how is that different from a security guarantee? That sounds like strategic clarity to me! Maybe @BonnieGlaser is pointing to key reality: US is ALREADY basically committed under TRA. So clarity would be going ~75% to 100%. So why not? 8/

Then she says: “If Beijing looks set to move against Taiwan, US could forestall a crisis by privately issuing clear warnings to China’s leader about consequences of such an action.” But would that be credible? And isn’t better to head off well before that to AVOID crisis? 9/

Closes: “Ambiguity has preserved cross-strait stability for decades and can continue to prevent war.” Maybe, but biggest error is preserving carcass of dead policies when no longer suit. Ambiguity was fine when PRC cldnt do anything. Now they can. Need to avoid Korea 1950. 10/