“
He was being specifically asked if Australia was obliged to go to war under ANZUS if the US went to war against China because Taiwan was attacked.
That was the specific question he was asked.
And in that context, he said no, ANZUS would not apply.”
That’s word games.
That’s why I said it was weasely.
“He was entirely accurate in saying so - because that would be a war triggered not by an attack on the US anywhere, but by an attack on Taiwan.”
Exactly - playing games. As if the Chinese would not attack the US in the Pacific if the US joined Taiwan in defending an attack from China.
But I must reiterate my disagreement.
He meant even if the US is attacked in defense if Taiwan. That was his message to Taiwan and the US on behalf of the Chinese Communists.
No, it’s not word games.
It is what the Treaty says.
Exact words matter when it comes to treaties. They don’t mean whatever somebody decides they mean.
Yes, and at that point, ANZUS might be invoked - it would depend on the precise circumstances (it doesn't automatically apply if a war is ongoing - otherwise America would have been drawn into things like the Indonesian Confrontation, when Australian troops were attacked in places like Borneo).
It would depend on whether the attack was a widening of the war or part of an existing war.