Ambiguity, Clarity
and Ambiguous Ambiguity
In 1979, a great geopolitical shift occurred. The United States embraced the People’s Republic of China as a way of increasing the pressure on the greater enemy, the Soviet Union. China was at the time still reeling from the chaos that had ravaged it, first by the hands of others and then by their own. An ancient giant was awakening, albeit in a different form. Both countries saw benefits and windows of opportunity. The moment was seized by respective leaders who by their actions bent the trajectories of the future.
In between the two giants remained Taiwan who in this shift lost the United States formal diplomatic recognition. As a way of protecting the status quo across the strait, the US Congress issued the Taiwan Relations Act to reassure its former official ally and enable substantial exchanges, not in the least by promising to provide Taiwan the means to protect itself militarily and committing to maintaining the capacity to intervene militarily in any future contingency.
China views Taiwan as a core national interest and a central part of its “great rejuvenation”. Taiwan has clearly stated its will and intent to keep its current status and the US supports it without breaking the created diplomatic framework in which coexistence has been possible. This delicate balancing act is ongoing.
In its effort to deter China from using military force to seize Taiwan and dissuade the self-governing Island from declaring official independence “Strategic Ambiguity” has been utilized. By leaving the question of whether it would come to Taiwan’s defense unanswered dual deterrence kept both sides of the strait from taking any action that could upend the status quo. To be clear, the power balance of today, means that a failure to uphold the balance has the potential to unleash a conflict this world has never seen.
Over the years there have been differences of opinion regarding whether the United States “Strategic Ambiguity” should be replaced with “Strategic Clarity”, stating clearly that it would defend Taiwan militarily if attacked. Proponents worry the changes in the power balance are making a conflict increasingly likely and argue a shift in posture would constitute a firmer deterrence.
During President Bidens term he on four different occasions more or less clearly stated that the US would intervene militarily if China tried to change the status quo by force. The statements were later diplomatically moderated by officials reaffirming that no official change of policy had been made.
In effect, this posture constitutes a third deterrence strategy, “Ambiguous Ambiguity”. In this case and at this point in time it creates the most solid deterrence of the three.
Correction 2025-03-08: Changed phrase “Taiwan Relation Act” to “Taiwan Relations Act”
Update 2026-08-25: Corrected grammar and spelling (going through old posts using a new tool). The content of the text was not changed in any way.