Admittedly, after nearly three decades in China my English proficiency isn’t what it used to be, or maybe my comprehension problem is age-related (?), but I’m stumped over the vocabulary choice in President Biden’s response to the question of the US defending Taiwan saying: “Yes, if in fact there was an unprecedented attack.”. Did President Biden intend to use another word? Perhaps “unprovoked”? “Unwarranted”? Some other “un” word? As “unprecedented” means not having happened before and the PRC has not yet sought to bring Taiwan into the fold forcefully (putting aside the mutually orchestrated showcase-shelling that occurred between Xiamen and Jinmen in previous years), then the use of “unprecedented” seems misspoken as the potential action referred to indeed has no precedent. This is either words not carefully chosen (how many times can we walk this back?) or is a statement more declarative than any before it. Words matter. I’m confused, please enlighten me with any thoughts on this.
Bill - to your point that Biden's statement "garbled the official policy", I would have to disagree. He said that the US is "not encouraging their being independent" which is what our policy means by "not supporting" independence. US policy has never been to discourage independence, but in practice that is what many previous administrations tended to do, partially as a holdover from when US leaders were trying to restrain Chiang Kai-Shek from sparking a conflict that would drag the US in. There doesn't seem to be that same risk now - despite the changes going on, most people are pretty pro-status quo and risk averse.
Obviously Biden was limited to a few very short statements, but I think he nailed it (even though the CCP will not be happy with his wording)
Admittedly, after nearly three decades in China my English proficiency isn’t what it used to be, or maybe my comprehension problem is age-related (?), but I’m stumped over the vocabulary choice in President Biden’s response to the question of the US defending Taiwan saying: “Yes, if in fact there was an unprecedented attack.”. Did President Biden intend to use another word? Perhaps “unprovoked”? “Unwarranted”? Some other “un” word? As “unprecedented” means not having happened before and the PRC has not yet sought to bring Taiwan into the fold forcefully (putting aside the mutually orchestrated showcase-shelling that occurred between Xiamen and Jinmen in previous years), then the use of “unprecedented” seems misspoken as the potential action referred to indeed has no precedent. This is either words not carefully chosen (how many times can we walk this back?) or is a statement more declarative than any before it. Words matter. I’m confused, please enlighten me with any thoughts on this.
Tragic irony with CCP characteristics, that at least 27 Chinese are dead -- who should not have died -- because of Zero Covid policies.
Bill - to your point that Biden's statement "garbled the official policy", I would have to disagree. He said that the US is "not encouraging their being independent" which is what our policy means by "not supporting" independence. US policy has never been to discourage independence, but in practice that is what many previous administrations tended to do, partially as a holdover from when US leaders were trying to restrain Chiang Kai-Shek from sparking a conflict that would drag the US in. There doesn't seem to be that same risk now - despite the changes going on, most people are pretty pro-status quo and risk averse.
Obviously Biden was limited to a few very short statements, but I think he nailed it (even though the CCP will not be happy with his wording)