Strategic ambiguity was a policy for a different time. Now it worsens Taiwan's and the US' security rather than enhancing it.
The US has long maintained a policy of ’strategic ambiguity’ with regards to Taiwan, meaning that it wants the world to be unsure whether or not it would militarily intervene were Taiwan to be attacked. By being ambiguous the US hopes to scare Taiwan’s enemies (read China) into thinking twice before attacking the island while also avoiding the diplomatic mess of guaranteeing the independence of a state America doesn’t formally recognise. On paper it’s a smart strategy, but as tensions over the Taiwan strait have been increasing and as American and Taiwanese politicians pursue closer ties through psuedo-formal diplomacy it becomes more and more difficult to maintain. Though the fact that America is steadily becoming less and less ambiguous seems not to have dawned on Washington.
The basic idea behind strategic ambiguity is sound, and if we were still in the 20th century it would be well worth pursuing but in a world where the Chinese navy has more ships than the US navy, and where China is the world’s second largest economy it requires a lot more to intimidate it than it took in the 1970’s when strategic ambiguity was conceived. With the added context of the war in Ukraine it might appear in Taipei as though the US has practically abandoned strategic ambiguity. After all, senior US politicians have visited the island and president Biden has said several times that the US would defend Taiwan; even if his aides later walked back on those promises. Add to that the fact that Ukraine was more firmly outside the US security umbrella than Taiwan is while still getting a ton of US support when the war broke out and it may look like Taiwan is more safe than ever.
In reality though, there’s a serious risk that any Taiwan crisis would spark a nuclear crisis. A crisis which might be caused or exacerbated by the fact that neither China nor Taiwan is entirely clear on where the US stands. Taiwan might make a move deem to be to aggressive to China because it thinks that the US has its back and China might make a move on Taiwan assuming that the US will back down. Strategic ambiguity is a cheap and effective tactic against a smaller adversary, but becomes a nightmare to use against a peer competitor.
In a nuclear world it is imperative to create an international system where the great powers can compete without risking a nuclear war. One of the reasons why the Cold War remained merely cold and not nuclear winter cold was that both sides had for the most part a decent grasp at what the other considered to be their interests and their red lines. Setting out to make a deliberately vague policy on what is to China a core province is a recipe for disaster. Either the US is firmer than China expects in which the risk is serious escalation, or the US throws Taiwan to the wolves which severely undercuts the US’ reputation as a credible ally.
Ultimately, any outcome which avoids a war between China and the US is a good outcome, whether we’re talking a proxy or a nuclear war. Strategic ambiguity was a policy designed for a bygone age and one which actively worsens Chinese, US, and global security. It is time for the US to decide if it will stand with Taiwan or not. Whatever the US decides the world will be safer for it; ambiguity will only increase the risks of a fatal misunderstanding.
If you liked this post you can read my last post about Donald Trump's legal problems here, or the rest of my writings here. It'd mean a lot to me if you recommended the blog to a friend or coworker. Come back next Monday for a new post!
I've always been interested in politics, economics, and the interplay between. The blog is a place for me to explore different ideas and concepts relating to economics or politics, be that national or international. The goal for the blog is to make you think; to provide new perspectives.
Written by Karl Johansson
Commentaires