There have been many new developments in Taiwan-U.S. relations recently. For one thing, the Health Secretary and State Security of the U.S. have visited Taiwan, respectively being the most senior cabinet official and most senior State Department official to have come to the island. In addition, the U.S. has sold some weapons to Taiwan, and Hsiao Bi-khim now goes by the title of “ambassador” on her Twitter account. All these make many people believe that Taiwan-U.S. relations may be normalized and the two may establish diplomatic relations.

Nevertheless, in a recent interview with the U.S. public radio network NPR, Taiwan’s Foreign Minister Joseph Wu said: “We are not seeking full diplomatic relations with the United States at this moment.” It sounds like Wu was pouring cold water on the optimist. But then, the gist of the interview was not about the establishment of Taiwan-U.S. diplomatic relations. Rather, it lies in Wu’s remark that Taiwan hopes the U.S. continues to provide “defensive articles” to Taiwan, and that the island does not rely on the U.S. to intervene in the event of a clash with China. “Taiwan’s defense is our own risk. It’s our own responsibility, and we try to prepare ourselves for the future scenarios,” he said.

Whom was Wu’s comment directed at? To understand the context, one needs to consider America’s “strategic ambiguity”. The thing is, the U.S. has never made it clear how it will react in case China invades Taiwan by force. All the while, it has been upholding its promise to sell a range of arms to Taiwan. The White House even has a memo stating that the quality and quantity of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan depend on the progress of the People’s Liberation Army’s military capabilities. However, the rules stated in the Taiwan Relations Act and the position of all U.S. administrative departments have never changed. The official line has always been that in case of acts undermining peace, the U.S. would be seriously concerned and take necessary measures.

Of late, there have been calls within the U.S. political circles for reviewing the policy of strategic ambiguity. The main reason cited is that China is getting stronger in different aspects and is beginning to challenge America’s leadership. Without clarifying America’s position, different parties may misjudge things. For example, if China’s policymakers firmly believe that the U.S. will not send troops to help defend Taiwan, they are more likely to invade Taiwan by force.

In the U.S. political circles, one of the leading figures in the debate is Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations. He used to advocate the idea of the U.S. taking a moderate stance when interacting with China. But in recent years, his position has shifted. He has become one of the leading figures among the American political elite who believe Washington should be more firm in dealing with China. In Foreign Affairs magazine, different commentators have recently engaged in a debate concerning China. The leading argument of Haas and his like-minded commentators was that strategic ambiguity could no longer curb China’s ambition to expand its influence.

On the other hand, Bonnie Glaser is one of the leading advocates for strategic ambiguity. She is against the idea of the U.S. making military commitment to Taiwan unconditionally. She believes that without prudent evaluation of Washington’s commitment to Taiwan with regard to a specific threat, China might have no more inhibition and opt for the most direct way that is to use force against Taiwan. Another important factor that has to be considered is Taiwan. Glaser is of the view that although President Tsai Ing-wen’s policies and her style are solid and she has a tacit understanding with the U.S., the U.S. cannot be sure that every one of her successors will be like her.

Apart from deterring China, another objective of America’s strategic ambiguity is to rein in Taiwan to prevent it going too far in its pursuit of de facto independence or in terms of implementing policies that touch China’s nerves. It also does not want Taiwan to rely entirely on the U.S. to defend the island. If the U.S. promises Taiwan more than what is promised in the Taiwan Relations Act, those promises could become a part of the long-term U.S. policy towards Taiwan, thus taking away the flexibility of the strategic ambiguity policy.

All this may not sound good, but America always gives top priority to its own interests. In fact, all countries do that in international politics. In fact, within the U.S. political circles, many people have been complaining about Taiwan’s low self-defense budget, ineffective enlistment policy and inadequate determination to resist the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Their basic argument concerns whether the U.S. should pay an excessive price to defend Taiwan in case the island is invaded by the CCP.

It seems there is room for Washington to adjust its strategic ambiguity policy. It is just that everyone is still debating about the level of clarity of Washington’s policy towards Taiwan. Surely, what Taiwan can do is to cement its self-defense capabilities in every aspect and also build closer relations with its allies, so as to convince America that Taiwan is an ally who can pack a punch. This is precisely the most important point Wu made in the NPR interview. He stressed that Taiwan has the determination to defend itself and is responsible for itself. As for building diplomatic relations, apparently the U.S. sees no real advantages in establishing formal ties with Taiwan, which is why Taiwan will not take the initiative to fight for that.

The importance of identifying the defeatists

The reason for the current discussions on America’s long-standing policy of strategic ambiguity has mainly to do with the fact that China’s rise has turned the relationship between China and the U.S. from one of allies to one of competitors. Nevertheless, what is not being mentioned is that the strategic ambiguity policy actually helps to justify the anti-American position of many U.S. skeptics in Taiwan, who believe the U.S. will give up Taiwan any time and therefore Taiwan ought to be friendly and subservient to China.

In fact, people like Ma Ying-jeou and Su Chi who claim that the U.S. will not come to Taiwan’s defense or that the U.S. military will be defeated by China are driven by a belief that Taiwan should stay away from the U.S. and get close to China. In the past, one objective of practicing strategic ambiguity was to prevent Taiwan going too far and too fast regarding cross-strait issues. Today, however, Washington may also have to consider the defeatism promoted by pro-China figures and the influence of those who want to move to the Beijing side in the face of the U.S.-China rivalry. For ordinary Taiwanese, detecting these almost defeatist ideas is one important way of reinforcing the country’s self-defense.

(Chen Fang-Yu, editor of U.S.-Taiwan Watch and co-editor of the website “Who Governs TW”)

Click here for Chinese version

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play