THANK YOU.
GILLIAN.
>> Gillian: FOX NEWS ALERT NOW
HOURS AGO IN TOKYO PRESIDENT
BIDEN SAID THE U.S. MILITARY
WOULD DEFEND TAIWAN IF CHINA
WERE TO INVADE.
WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
LATER WALKED BACK THAT
STATEMENT.
GENERAL JACK KEANE JOINS US NOW.
GENERAL.
THE WALKBACK FROM THE WHITE
HOUSE IS PROMPTING A LOT OF
FOLKS TO SAY IT APPEARED TO BE
A GAFFE BY PRESIDENT BIDEN
OVERSEAS.
WHAT ARE THE ODDS THE PRESIDENT
MEANT WHAT HE SAID AND HE PLANS
TO ORDER THE U.S. MILITARY TO
DEFEND TAIWAN AND TAIWAN’S
SOVEREIGNTY IF CHINA INVADES?
>> I CLEARLY THINK THAT’S WHAT
HE MEANS.
HE WAS ASKED A QUESTION IN
AUGUST IN AN INTERVIEW AND IN
OCTOBER IN A TOWN HALL MEETING
OF LAST YEAR.
THAT WAS PRE-UKRAINE.
AND HE GAVE THE SAME ANSWER.
ACTUALLY USING SOME OF THE SAME
WORDS AND NOW HE IS ASKED THIS
QUESTION MOTIVATED LARGELY BY
WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE IN UKRAINE.
HE GIVES A SIMILAR ANSWER AND
PROVIDES WHAT I THINK IS A
FAIRLY SATISFACTORY ANSWER TO
THE QUESTION AND HE SAID IT
WOULD BE HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE
IF CHINA TOOK TAIWAN BY FORCE.
OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD RESPOND TO
THAT BECAUSE WE MADE A
COMMITMENT.
HE HAS LIKELY MADE THIS
COMMITMENT WITH HIS NATIONAL
SECURITY TEAM AND ALL IN
AGREEMENT LIKELY, NOT PUBLICLY,
AND MAY HAVE SAID THE SAME
THING TO OUR ALLIES AND ALSO
EXPLAINED THAT SOMETHING LIKE
THAT, IF CHINA TOOK CONTROL OF
TAIWAN, WHAT IT WOULD DO TO THE
ENTIRE REGION.
AND THAT WOULD BE JUSTIFICATION
CERTAINLY FOR ENTERING IN ON
TAIWAN’S BEHALF.
IT’S UNFORTUNATE --
>> Gillian: I’M SORRY TO
INTERRUPT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE I TAP YOUR
BRAIN ON THIS.
I THINK A LOT OF AMERICANS ARE
WONDERING WHAT THE KEY
DIFFERENCE IS HERE VERSUS THE
SITUATION IN UKRAINE.
WHY WOULD THE U.S. MILITARY
INTERVENE TO DEFEND TAIWANESE
SOVEREIGNTY BUT WE WOULDN’T
INTERVENE IN UKRAINE TO DEFEND
THEM AGAINST AN ILLEGAL
INVASION BY RUSSIA?
>> BECAUSE UKRAINE WAS NOT
ALIGNED WITH THE UNITED STATES
AS PART OF NATO.
PRESIDENT BUSH RECOMMENDED
THAT, GERMANY AND FRANCE
IMMEDIATELY REJECTED IT AND IN
THE SAME YEAR THEY RECOMMENDED
GEORGIA, RUSSIA DID INVADE
GEORGIA.
THAT IS THE BASIC DIFFERENCE IN
THE TWO OF THEM AND WITH
TAIWAN, WE GO BACK TO THE 1979
TAIWAN RELATIONS ACT AND WHAT
ALL THAT SIMPLY SAID IS WE
BROKE RELATIONS WITH TAIWAN AND
STARTED RELATIONS WITH MAINLAND
CHINA.
THIS IS JIMMY CARTER.
WE WANT PEACE AND STABILITY
BETWEEN MAIN LAND CHINA AND
TAIWAN.
THE STATUS QUO.
BUT HERE WHY DOES THE QUESTION
KEEP GETTING ASKED?
THE REASON IS THIS.
PRESIDENT XI WHEN HE CAME INTO
POWER WITH HIS PUBLIC POLICY
STATEMENTS, MADE THIS STATEMENT
PARAPHRASED BY ME, THAT THE
TAIWAN SITUATION WILL BE
RESOLVED PEACEFULLY OR
FORCEFULLY AND HE INTENDS TO DO
THAT WHILE HE IS IN POWER.
HE IS THREATENING WAR WITH
TAIWAN.
THAT IS BREAKING THE STATUS QUO
AND THEN, GILLIAN, HE FOLLOWED
IT UP WITH INTIMIDATION AND
COERCION, WITH MULTIPLE
MILITARY INCURSS, RE-- IT IS
TIME FOR THE UNITED STATES TO
MOVE AWAY FROM STRATEGIC
AMBIGUITY WHICH PRESIDENT XI
HAS BROKEN AND MOVE TOWARDS A
POLICY THAT IS CLEAR THAT THE
WORLD UNDERSTANDS AND PRESIDENT
XI UNDERSTANDS THAT WE WILL IN
FACT DEFEND TAIWAN WHICH IS
EXACTLY WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS
SAYING.
>> Gillian: A COUPLE SECONDS
LEFT, GENERAL.
"WALL STREET JOURNAL" REPORTING
THE U.S. COULD SEND SPECIAL
FORCES OVERSEAS TO PROTECT THE
NEWLY OPENED AMERICAN EMBASSY
IN KYIV.
GOOD MOVE OR BAD MOVE?
>> OH YEAH, LISTEN, HOST
COUNTRY IS SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE
SECURITY.
THEY ARE FIGHTING A WAR, THEY
CAN’T DO IT.
USUALLY IN WAR ZONES WE BEEF UP
OUR SECURITY QUITE A BIT.
DIPLOMATIC SECURITY IN CHARGE
OF IT.
MILITARY TO ASSIST IT’S
APPROPRIATE.
SCALE THE SECURITY FORCE TO
WHAT THE THREAT IS REGARDLESS
OF WHAT THAT IS.
>> Gillian: WE HAVE TO LEAVE IT