The Case for Maintaining Strategic Ambiguity in the Taiwan Strait

For decades, one key dimension of US policy toward Taiwan has been “strategic ambiguity.” With its equivocal reassurance in defending Taiwan, while recognizing there is “one China,” Washington has sought both to prevent Beijing from launching an unprovoked attack on the island and to dissuade Taipei from declaring the island’s de jure independence from the mainland. Since Washington established diplomatic ties with the PRC in 1979, this policy has allowed the United States to maintain cooperative and beneficial relationships with both sides of the Taiwan Strait, contributing to peace and prosperity in the region. In recent years, however, there have been clear signs that cross-Strait relations have become less stable and more war-prone. China’s belligerence toward Taiwan is increasing—in particular, it has intensified its military exercises in the air and in the waters surrounding Taiwan—prompting a renewed debate over the appropriate level of US security assurances for the island. A growing number of scholars and analysts are calling for a clearer, enhanced US commitment to deter Chinese aggression, shifting Washington’s Taiwan policy to one of “strategic clarity.” The US government seemed to be moving in this direction. The Trump administration received Taiwanese leaders in US government facilities, dispatched cabinet-level officials to the island, and sold a large quantity of advanced weapons to Taipei. The Biden administration, while revitalizing traditional US