1

The TheDefensePost.com 2022-03-22 Op-Ed piece US Should Abandon Strategic Ambiguity for ‘Dual Clarity’ Toward Taiwan is a letter by four academics which proposes a new "Dual Clarity" position for the US to replace it's current strategic or deliberate ambiguity with regards to Taiwan. It includes the following:

Dual Clarity Toward Taiwan

In practice, the policy of dual clarity means that the United States will announce its commitment to defending Taiwan if and only if Taiwan vows not to declare independence.

The policy is called dual clarity as it is crystal clear to both Taiwan and China about the condition under which Washington would intervene.

and later:

Ruling Out Independence for Taiwan:

Arguably, ruling out the independence option will upset some or even many in Taiwan, but some citizens are likely to view it as a worthwhile bargain as it requires little change to their way of life while getting the craved US security guarantee.

China’s opposition to such an idea could also be minimal; the US is helping it by quashing Taiwan’s independence, which can be considered a strategic victory for the CCP.

Of course, the CCP could say no to this proposal, believing that the US commitment to dual clarity policy is uncredible and that the term can be revised anytime in the future. Furthermore, the CCP could deny any US official involvement in cross-Strait relations.

Question: How could the US benefit from replacing strategic ambiguity with the proposed "Dual Clarity Toward Taiwan"? In what ways would the US be constrained or its foreign policy goals foiled by adopting it?

4
  • 3
    I guess this article is written by people with Taiwanese background? I am sure Taiwan would benefit from this new policy once adopted but I doubt U.S. would benefit from it... I think U.S. doesn't want to be strictly obligated to defend Taiwan, by speculation.
    – No One
    Mar 22 at 21:16
  • @question I had a hard time seeing how this could be a net positive for the US as well, which is why I've written the question in this way. The authors seem to argue that it might make the Chinese government happy, but I can't figure out how that is supposed to be good for the US either.
    – uhoh
    Mar 23 at 7:16
  • 1
    msn.com/en-us/news/world/… This article is interesting...
    – No One
    Mar 23 at 18:58
  • @question yes, I suppose that it shows the strategic ambiguity is effective, at least as being ambiguous?
    – uhoh
    Mar 24 at 0:40

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .