Opinion | Strategic clarity is already here, let's be honest

By Tom Fowdy

On a Sunday night interview on the eve before attending the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II, US President Joe Biden said again that the US would "defend" Taiwan if it were attacked by China. The remark, simply "yes", came as a response to a question which also specifically asked if the US would send "servicemen" in such an event. Although this is the third occasion Biden has made such remarks, which are usually walked back on by a later White House statement claiming the "policy hasn't changed", it can hardly be written off as a gaffe in lieu of other US actions pertaining to the island, not least including Nancy Pelosi's highly publicized and controversial visit in August.

If it were not obvious yet, it should be by now: The United States has abandoned their position of "Strategic ambiguity" when it comes to Taiwan and has shifted towards a policy of "Strategic Clarity"- that is not being ambiguous over the island's fate, but directly setting out America's position that they would intervene in a contingency. By default, this position completely abrogates the US so-called commitment to the "One China Policy" as it affirms the United States is no longer willing to accept the island's reunification by China, given the obvious unfeasibility of "peaceful means". It also comes amidst reports leaked to Reuters last week, which state the US is preparing sanctions on China over Taiwan irrespectively, although this remains to be seen.

Either way, this issue is fast pushing itself to the point of no-return. The United States have instigated and exacerbated a geopolitical confrontation in the Taiwan Strait, which they dishonestly blame on Beijing, in weaponizing the island as a tool to contain it. It cannot be said at this point, as similar to the situation in Ukraine, that the United States seeks to avoid or prevent war. Rather, given things in Kyiv are swinging to the benefit of the United States, the White House sees the instigation of conflict itself as in the strategic benefit of the US, and this is precisely why it refuses to compromise as it gradually erodes China's red-line, with Beijing being repeatedly framed as the aggressor despite the reality that the US is walking back on its longstanding commitments.

Proponents of strategic clarity argue that such a policy will deter war because it sets out clearly the consequences for China should they decide to invade. That is, a war itself with the United States. They believe that by setting this out, they can limit China's options whilst continually "salami slicing" the One China Policy and changing the status quo. Meaning, they can't do anything about it. This seems to reflect the logic of most foreign policy makers in Washington. There is a belief that if China's hand is "forced" it only imposes grave costs on itself, and will not jeopardize economic development for reunification or a potential conflict against the USA, which would be catastrophic either way you look at it.

On the other hand, opponents of strategic clarity and advocates of "ambiguity" argue such a policy is dangerous because it doesn't deter war, but make it more of a certainty. China is likely to see the overtures from Washington D.C in recent months as an absolute affirmation of a de-facto support of independence, and the US commitment to the "One China Policy" being essentially worthless. This destruction of strategic trust and clarity, means that China is backed into a corner and sees no other option in the long term on the issue but to prepare for war. This increases the risk of miscalculations and also a belief that because the US are going to intervene, China might be better off pre-emptively starting that conflict itself and by surprise. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Given this, America's doubling down on Taiwan related provocations will pose serious long-term consequences. Ukraine is giving them surreal levels of hubris, believing that China will either blink first, not make rash decisions, or in turn can easily be defeated through the combined might of the US and its allies. All of these are dangerous miscalculations that could easily surmount in the largest conflict yet of the 21st century. It might not happen soon, it is hard otherwise to see how such is quickly becoming a fatalistic conclusion, with the US being the primary instigator.

The author is a well-seasoned writer and analyst with a large portfolio related to China topics, especially in the field of politics, international relations and more. He graduated with an Msc. in Chinese Studies from Oxford University in 2018.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.

Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:

Opinion | What next for Russia

Opinion | Winter is coming, and Europe faces the energy crunch