Danny and Derek are joined by James Lin, assistant professor of international studies at the University of Washington, to discuss Joe Biden’s “gaffe” about U.S. policy toward Taiwan.
This was an interesting interview, but I'm slightly confused. My understanding of strategic ambiguity would be, for example, having the president say one thing and then having people around him appear to run around rolling it back or calling it a gaff. And then just keep doing that whenever it comes up. That way people don't know what the official strategy is.
That appears to be what they are doing, so strategic ambiguity is their strategy, not strategic clarity. This conversation seems to suggest that strategic ambiguity is a good strategy but doesn't seem to say that what Biden is doing is pursuing that strategy, as evidenced by his actions.
Hi Calvin, thanks for listening. What you've described and what Biden has been stating on Taiwan is not the standard or historical definition of strategic ambiguity with regards to US-Taiwan relations. The intent of strategic ambiguity is actually not to obfuscate or confuse the public and other nations on what the US intent is. Strategic ambiguity refers to the US not committing to a specific course of action with regards to Taiwan as an actual course of policy. In that regard, it is actually quite clear, and the US has held to strategic ambiguity for a half century now.
"Strategic clarity," which is what Richard Haass and others are calling for, is also not what Biden is doing now. Strategic clarity would imply a written change to US policy, including likely a congressional act revising the 1979 TRA. There is a difference between words spoken at a journalist Q&A and the domestic laws set out by Congress.
This was an interesting interview, but I'm slightly confused. My understanding of strategic ambiguity would be, for example, having the president say one thing and then having people around him appear to run around rolling it back or calling it a gaff. And then just keep doing that whenever it comes up. That way people don't know what the official strategy is.
That appears to be what they are doing, so strategic ambiguity is their strategy, not strategic clarity. This conversation seems to suggest that strategic ambiguity is a good strategy but doesn't seem to say that what Biden is doing is pursuing that strategy, as evidenced by his actions.
Hi Calvin, thanks for listening. What you've described and what Biden has been stating on Taiwan is not the standard or historical definition of strategic ambiguity with regards to US-Taiwan relations. The intent of strategic ambiguity is actually not to obfuscate or confuse the public and other nations on what the US intent is. Strategic ambiguity refers to the US not committing to a specific course of action with regards to Taiwan as an actual course of policy. In that regard, it is actually quite clear, and the US has held to strategic ambiguity for a half century now.
"Strategic clarity," which is what Richard Haass and others are calling for, is also not what Biden is doing now. Strategic clarity would imply a written change to US policy, including likely a congressional act revising the 1979 TRA. There is a difference between words spoken at a journalist Q&A and the domestic laws set out by Congress.