克里米亞的故事，對歐巴馬的亞洲政策有任何警惕？顯然沒有！

【Comment】

克里米亞的故事，對歐巴馬的亞洲政策有任何警惕？顯然沒有！

在台灣關係法35週年聽證會中，歐巴馬政權只要再一次重申過去總是朗朗上口的TRA與美中三公報，以及與〈八一七公報〉搭配而由口頭承諾形式為之的〈六項保證〉，行禮如儀一番就好。但實際卻不是這樣。這讓人起疑～

羅素吱吱唔唔閃閃躲躲的說〈六項保證〉是「重要部分」 (an important part) 與「要素」 (an element)，卻不是如以往所言的「政策」，而且死不改口，還推說「俺不通曉歐巴馬或先前幾屆政權如此清晰的聲明」 (I'm not familiar with categorical statements of that nature in this or in recent administrations.)。

僅僅在2011年，歐巴馬的核心 Kurt Campbell 還說 TRA、〈六項保證〉與三大公報是整體政策的基礎。但幾週後國防部長 Leon Panetta 國會作證時卻說溜嘴：軍售台灣有事先告訴中國。顯然違背〈六項保證〉。

美國（其實是歐巴馬）給人家的印象是：不願防衛盟友反而喜歡取悅敵人。

華盛頓應該再次保證，否則會引狼入室。

Inviting an Asian Crimea--A U.S. official backs away from historic U.S. policy on Taiwan○WSJ（2014.04.06）http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579481761442302716

With Russia's seizure of Crimea, you would think the Obama Administration would be keen to deter similar revanchism by other ambitious autocracies.  If recent testimony by the State Department's top Asia official is anything to go by, apparently not.

Last Thursday Assistant Secretary Danny Russel backed away from the "six assurances" that for decades have been the pillars of U.S. policy toward Taiwan.  First conveyed by the Reagan Administration in 1982, the assurances emphasized that Washington would continue selling defensive weapons to Taiwan without prior consultations with Beijing.  They also stated that Washington wouldn't revise its position that there is only "one China" and that Beijing and Taipei should eventually settle their differences peacefully.

These assurances—along with the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act and a set of three U.S.-China diplomatic communiqués—have helped Taiwan grow rich and democratic despite being increasingly vulnerable to aggression from a rising China.  So it would seem wise for the Administration simply to reaffirm the policy.

Yet when asked repeatedly by Senator Marco Rubio whether the Obama Administration is committed to the six assurances, Mr. Russel bobbed and weaved, characterizing them as merely "an important part" and "an element" of U.S. policy.  Mr. Rubio asked again: "Why can't the answer be, 'Yes, we remain committed to all six of them.' . . . Why are you unable to say that?"

Replied Mr. Russel: "The underpinning of our approach to Taiwan is the one-China policy, the three communiqués and the Taiwan Relations Act."  As for the Senator's suggested language, Mr. Russel said, "I'm not familiar with categorical statements of that nature in this or in recent administrations."

Yet in 2011 his own predecessor, Kurt Campbell, the Obama Administration's first lead Asia diplomat, told Congress that "the Taiwan Relations Act, plus the so-called 'Six Assurances' and the three communiqués, form the foundation of our overall approach."  Mr. Rubio was right to sense a policy change in Mr. Russel's testimony—and right to be alarmed.

A few weeks after Mr. Campbell's 2011 testimony, then Defense Secretary Leon Panetta let slip that he had "given the Chinese a head's up as to what was going to take place" with the most recent U.S. arms sale to Taiwan.  The message then as now: In tight spots, expect the Obama Administration not to be firm in defending its friends but flexible in trying to please its foes.

The least Washington can do now is reaffirm its commitment to the assurances.  Anything less could invite China to think it can stage its own land grab at little cost to its relations with the U.S.