For too long, the geopolitical decisionmakers in the US have smugly congratulated themselves on the genius of strategic ambiguity as a deterrent against Chinese annexation of Taiwan and as a deterrent against Taiwan independence. They now fail to recognize that there’s a lot more at stake. Moreover, strategic ambiguity might have been effective while the US had clear military superiority in the Western Pacific. Now it does not.
There’s a lot more than just Taiwan at stake if the US continues to rely on strategic ambiguity to maintain the status quo in the Western Pacific. If China takes control of Taiwan, the other US allies in the region — Japan, South Korea, Australia and the Philippines — will start to align with China. That will fundamentally change global geopolitics. US strategists don’t seem fully aware of these implications.
Another thing that US strategists have only recently become aware of is Taiwan’s growing importance in global supply chains. It used to be the attitude that semiconductors are things that only nerds should care about. Now more people recognize that — wow — chips are in cars, computers, games, toasters and hypersonic missiles, and without chips, none of these things can be manufactured. Chips are suddenly the world’s new oil, and Taiwan makes the world’s most technologically advanced chips. If China takes over this supply chain that’s vital to the survival of Apple, Amazon, Google, Tesla, General Motors and so on, it’s game over for the US and European economies. Instead of Apple and Google, we’ll be living in a world where Huawei, Baidu and Geely are among the dominant brand names. It will be a completely different world.
China knows that while US strategists congratulate themselves on the success of strategic ambiguity maintaining the status quo, they can quietly bide their time and use a variety of grey zone operations to expand their control of the South China Sea, the area around Taiwan and the Western Pacific — all without a significant US military response — until the day comes when Taiwan is effectively surrounded and cut off from any US intervention, ambiguous or otherwise.
It will be then that the US strategists will realize what fools they have been.
"Game theory" does not mean what you think it means.
The analogy to poker is a poor one. "Not revealing your hand" is an example of "tactical" ambiguity, intended to confuse an opponent by obfuscation. In analogy, this will involve the US not revealing (for example) how many troops of what kind is going to be sent in the event of a war, or perhaps whether troops are sent at all rather than some other form of material support, but making absolutely dead clear that it will be supporting Taiwan victory in the event of a conflict.
This is not at all the same as "strategic" ambiguity, whereby the intention is to confuse everyone as to where your red lines are, whose side you are on or even whether you are in the game at all; usually because you don't want to play. This is how Strategic Ambiguity arose in 1979, when the US wanted to woo China into isolating Russia following the Sino-Soviet split but didn't want to cause alarm by seeming to abandon a decades old ally. and therefore left everyone in the dark as to its preferred outcome of a Chinese invasion.
Such a move may be morally justifiable then, when Taiwan as under a dictatorship little better than China, and the US did indeed not care about the annexation of Taiwan. Today, leaving an ally in the dark as to whether you even support their continued existence is tantamount to gaslighting, as well as the very reason for the "actual" ambiguity of the sort you denounce, and yet seem to want to perpetuate by denying Taiwan the dignity of self-expression.
All this, in conjunction with your conclusion, makes appear as though you believe that that the only responsibility the US has is to scare Taiwan (and Australia, for bizarre reasons) into committing to a "competent defense", while itself offering nothing of value, not even the dignity that Taiwan has long sought.
And that would be okay. It just makes the US look like self centered assholes.
"Building the Taiwanese brand internationally is very good" 👈
I think this is very important. Americans are pretty divided on how engaged we want to be with the rest of the world and while there's not a lot of love for China, getting into a big big fight sounds expensive and scary. There is definitely an inward turning mood.
Also, not to stereotype my fellow country folk, we are not that stellar with geography. (Heck, many Americans haven't been to huge parts of the rest of America.)
So as silly as it sounds, putting Taiwan on the mental map for Americans as the nice friendly place that invented bubble tea could be really important. That means more Americans would be very sad if something bad happened to Taiwan. And that could really matter.
But I also think it would be wise to try and build good relationships with the various factions within the US. A harder stance on China (and protection of Taiwan) could help bridge some of the domestic divisions in a highly polarized US. But navigating those politics is going to take a certain deftness. (For example of how we are super divided, Democrats are more likely to own cats 😺 so "cat diplomacy" might work there, but Republicans are more likely to own dogs! 🐶)
For too long, the geopolitical decisionmakers in the US have smugly congratulated themselves on the genius of strategic ambiguity as a deterrent against Chinese annexation of Taiwan and as a deterrent against Taiwan independence. They now fail to recognize that there’s a lot more at stake. Moreover, strategic ambiguity might have been effective while the US had clear military superiority in the Western Pacific. Now it does not.
There’s a lot more than just Taiwan at stake if the US continues to rely on strategic ambiguity to maintain the status quo in the Western Pacific. If China takes control of Taiwan, the other US allies in the region — Japan, South Korea, Australia and the Philippines — will start to align with China. That will fundamentally change global geopolitics. US strategists don’t seem fully aware of these implications.
Another thing that US strategists have only recently become aware of is Taiwan’s growing importance in global supply chains. It used to be the attitude that semiconductors are things that only nerds should care about. Now more people recognize that — wow — chips are in cars, computers, games, toasters and hypersonic missiles, and without chips, none of these things can be manufactured. Chips are suddenly the world’s new oil, and Taiwan makes the world’s most technologically advanced chips. If China takes over this supply chain that’s vital to the survival of Apple, Amazon, Google, Tesla, General Motors and so on, it’s game over for the US and European economies. Instead of Apple and Google, we’ll be living in a world where Huawei, Baidu and Geely are among the dominant brand names. It will be a completely different world.
China knows that while US strategists congratulate themselves on the success of strategic ambiguity maintaining the status quo, they can quietly bide their time and use a variety of grey zone operations to expand their control of the South China Sea, the area around Taiwan and the Western Pacific — all without a significant US military response — until the day comes when Taiwan is effectively surrounded and cut off from any US intervention, ambiguous or otherwise.
It will be then that the US strategists will realize what fools they have been.
Your final paragraph says it all. Your last line is the summation of my failed efforts to open complacent eyes to reality. Thanks.
"Game theory" does not mean what you think it means.
The analogy to poker is a poor one. "Not revealing your hand" is an example of "tactical" ambiguity, intended to confuse an opponent by obfuscation. In analogy, this will involve the US not revealing (for example) how many troops of what kind is going to be sent in the event of a war, or perhaps whether troops are sent at all rather than some other form of material support, but making absolutely dead clear that it will be supporting Taiwan victory in the event of a conflict.
This is not at all the same as "strategic" ambiguity, whereby the intention is to confuse everyone as to where your red lines are, whose side you are on or even whether you are in the game at all; usually because you don't want to play. This is how Strategic Ambiguity arose in 1979, when the US wanted to woo China into isolating Russia following the Sino-Soviet split but didn't want to cause alarm by seeming to abandon a decades old ally. and therefore left everyone in the dark as to its preferred outcome of a Chinese invasion.
Such a move may be morally justifiable then, when Taiwan as under a dictatorship little better than China, and the US did indeed not care about the annexation of Taiwan. Today, leaving an ally in the dark as to whether you even support their continued existence is tantamount to gaslighting, as well as the very reason for the "actual" ambiguity of the sort you denounce, and yet seem to want to perpetuate by denying Taiwan the dignity of self-expression.
All this, in conjunction with your conclusion, makes appear as though you believe that that the only responsibility the US has is to scare Taiwan (and Australia, for bizarre reasons) into committing to a "competent defense", while itself offering nothing of value, not even the dignity that Taiwan has long sought.
And that would be okay. It just makes the US look like self centered assholes.
"Building the Taiwanese brand internationally is very good" 👈
I think this is very important. Americans are pretty divided on how engaged we want to be with the rest of the world and while there's not a lot of love for China, getting into a big big fight sounds expensive and scary. There is definitely an inward turning mood.
Also, not to stereotype my fellow country folk, we are not that stellar with geography. (Heck, many Americans haven't been to huge parts of the rest of America.)
So as silly as it sounds, putting Taiwan on the mental map for Americans as the nice friendly place that invented bubble tea could be really important. That means more Americans would be very sad if something bad happened to Taiwan. And that could really matter.
But I also think it would be wise to try and build good relationships with the various factions within the US. A harder stance on China (and protection of Taiwan) could help bridge some of the domestic divisions in a highly polarized US. But navigating those politics is going to take a certain deftness. (For example of how we are super divided, Democrats are more likely to own cats 😺 so "cat diplomacy" might work there, but Republicans are more likely to own dogs! 🐶)