Is America’s Shifting Taiwan Policy Making Anyone Safer?
There is a real danger that the actions the United States is taking in an effort to signal support for Taiwan will actually spur a conflict over Taiwan
This article was originally published in the National Interest.
The discourse around the United States’ commitment to Taiwan has shifted from strategic ambiguity toward strategic clarity. This trend has become more explicit recently, with Rep. Elaine Luria (D-VA) effectively calling for a pre-emptive delegation of war powers over Taiwan and former Deputy Navy Undersecretary Seth Cropsey advocating for the United States to plan for a no-fly zone over Taiwan. Advocates of ending the U.S. policy of strategic ambiguity over Taiwan suggest that the United States should state publicly, before any hostilities begin, that it is committed to going to war to prevent China from taking over Taiwan by force. While they are doubtless well-intentioned, proponents of such arguments apparently fail to grasp the grave implications of undermining U.S. strategic ambiguity over Taiwan and the “One China” policy it is based on. The Biden administration and Congress must be clear-eyed about their own respective roles in driving China’s escalatory behavior, and they should assess whether their actions are truly furthering the goal of maintaining the peace over Taiwan.
In recent years, policymakers have behaved as though the United States has already established formal relations with Taiwan and made an overt commitment to its defense. It has done neither. However, a new approach to U.S.-Taiwan relations has manifested itself in several observable changes in official U.S. policy, including the Taiwan Travel Act and the “New Guidelines for U.S. Government Interactions with Taiwan Counterparts,” as well as changes in rhetoric and diplomatic conduct by U.S. officials that clearly deviate from prior practice of the One China policy.
Is America’s Shifting Taiwan Policy Making Anyone Safer?
By James Siebens • Spencer Dingman
Defense Policy & Posture
This article was originally published in the National Interest.
The discourse around the United States’ commitment to Taiwan has shifted from strategic ambiguity toward strategic clarity. This trend has become more explicit recently, with Rep. Elaine Luria (D-VA) effectively calling for a pre-emptive delegation of war powers over Taiwan and former Deputy Navy Undersecretary Seth Cropsey advocating for the United States to plan for a no-fly zone over Taiwan. Advocates of ending the U.S. policy of strategic ambiguity over Taiwan suggest that the United States should state publicly, before any hostilities begin, that it is committed to going to war to prevent China from taking over Taiwan by force. While they are doubtless well-intentioned, proponents of such arguments apparently fail to grasp the grave implications of undermining U.S. strategic ambiguity over Taiwan and the “One China” policy it is based on. The Biden administration and Congress must be clear-eyed about their own respective roles in driving China’s escalatory behavior, and they should assess whether their actions are truly furthering the goal of maintaining the peace over Taiwan.
In recent years, policymakers have behaved as though the United States has already established formal relations with Taiwan and made an overt commitment to its defense. It has done neither. However, a new approach to U.S.-Taiwan relations has manifested itself in several observable changes in official U.S. policy, including the Taiwan Travel Act and the “New Guidelines for U.S. Government Interactions with Taiwan Counterparts,” as well as changes in rhetoric and diplomatic conduct by U.S. officials that clearly deviate from prior practice of the One China policy.
Read the full article in the National Interest.
Recent & Related