Policy of deliberate ambiguity

Last updated

In the context of global politics, a policy of deliberate ambiguity (also known as a policy of strategic ambiguity or strategic uncertainty) is the practice by a government or non-state actor of being deliberately ambiguous with regard to all or certain aspects of its operational or positional policies. [1] This is typically a way to avoid direct conflict while maintaining a masked more assertive or threatening position on a subject (broadly, a geopolitical risk aversion strategy).

Contents

Examples of geopolitical ambiguity

China

Currently, two governments claim legitimate rule and sovereignty over all of China, which they claim includes Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, as well as some other islands. The People's Republic of China (PRC) rules Mainland China under a one-party system and Hong Kong and Macau as special administrative regions, while the Republic of China (ROC) governs the Island of Taiwan as well as the Kinmen Islands, the Pescadores Islands and the Matsu Islands, which the ROC collectively refers to as the "Free area of the Republic of China". For further background, see Two Chinas, One-China policy and Cross-Strait relations.

Owing to the controversial political status of Taiwan and the People's Republic of China's One-China policy, foreign governments have felt a need to be ambiguous regarding Taiwan. The PRC pressures states to recognize it as the sole legitimate representative of China, with which most states comply. In practice, however, most states maintain different levels of ambiguity on their attitudes to the Taiwan issue: see Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China and Foreign relations of the Republic of China.

Starting with the 1979 Nagoya Resolution and the following 1981 agreement with the International Olympic Committee, those from Taiwan who attend the Olympic Games and other various international organizations and events participate under the deliberately ambiguous name of "Chinese Taipei". [2]

India

India's Draft Nuclear Doctrine of 2003 affirms its policies of "No First Use" and "Credible Minimum Deterrence", limiting its nuclear weapons posture. In spite of that, senior officials have implied that the country may have expanded their posture to include first-strike capabilities. It is not clear whether this is an instance of deliberate ambiguity or merely discord among Indian leadership. [3]

Israel

Israel is deliberately ambiguous as to whether or not it possesses nuclear weapons, which its commentators term "nuclear ambiguity" or "nuclear opacity". [4] It is a general consensus that Israel is in possession of nuclear weapons. [5]

Israel has also practiced deliberate ambiguity over the issue of targeted killings and airstrikes. Prior to 2017, Israel generally neither confirmed or denied whether Israel was involved in the deaths of suspected terrorists on foreign soil.[ citation needed ]

However, with the onset of the Syrian Civil War (and Israel's involvement against Iran and Hezbollah), exceptions to its policy became more prominent. Israel actively acknowledged that its intervention in the war has been limited to missile strikes, [6] [7] which until 2017 were not officially acknowledged. Israel has also made rare exceptions to this policy to deny involvement in certain killings in the war.

With regard to notable targeted killings and assassination attempts, Israel has often exhibited a more nuanced approach to policies of intentional ambiguity, as demonstrated by numerous assassination attempts on Mohammed Deif. This example of 'policy opacity' demonstrates how the approach to a subject can change with time and circumstance.

Russia

In early April 2015, an editorial in the British newspaper The Times , with a reference to semi-official sources within the Russian military and intelligence establishment, opined that Russia's warnings of its alleged preparedness for a nuclear response to certain non-nuclear acts on the part of NATO, were to be construed as "an attempt to create strategic uncertainty" to undermine Western concerted security policy. [8]

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom is deliberately ambiguous about whether its ballistic missile submarines would carry out a nuclear counter-attack in the event that the government were destroyed by a nuclear first strike. Upon taking office, the incoming prime minister issues sealed letters of last resort to the commanders of the submarines on what action to take in such circumstances. [9]

United States

The United States has utilized numerous policies of strategic ambiguity in numerous geopolitical areas.[ further explanation needed ]

Taiwan issue

The United States has numerous ambiguous policies relating to its positions on Taiwan. This issue is at the cornerstone of United States–Taiwan relations and a central sticking point in United States–China relations. This policy was intended to discourage both a unilateral declaration of independence by ROC leaders and an invasion of Taiwan by the PRC. [10] The United States seemingly abandoned strategic ambiguity in 2001 after then-President George W. Bush stated that he would "do whatever it takes" to defend Taiwan. [11] He later used more ambiguous language, stating in 2003 that "The United States policy is one China". [12]

President Joe Biden has also seemingly abandoned strategic ambiguity, having said on several occasions that the United States would defend Taiwan if it was attacked. After each of these remarks, however, the White House declared that there had been no official change in policy. [13]

As an example, in October 2021, President Biden announced a commitment that the United States would defend Taiwan if attacked by the People's Republic of China. [14] But then the White House quickly clarified: "The president was not announcing any change in our policy and there is no change in our policy". [15]

In May 2022 Biden again stated that the U.S. would intervene militarily if China invaded Taiwan. Though a White House official again stated that the statement did not indicate a policy shift. [16]

Response to chemical or biological warfare

Another historic use of this policy is whether the United States would retaliate to a chemical or biological attack with nuclear weapons; specifically, during the Persian Gulf War. Related is the notion of a nuclear umbrella. Some commentators believe President Barack Obama broke US policy and damaged U.S. interests by failing to take sufficient action against the regime of Bashar al-Assad for its Ghouta chemical attack on civilians in the village of Ghouta near Damascus on August 21, 2013. President Barack Obama had used the phrase "red line" [17] in reference to the use of chemical weapons on August 20, just one day prior. Specifically, Obama said: "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation." [18]

Nuclear weapons on surface ships

Since passing a 1987 law, New Zealand has banned all nuclear powered means of war, whether nuclear weapons or nuclear powered propulsion from its sovereign territory; thereby making it a military nuclear-free zone. New Zealand has not banned civilian nuclear energy, but it is no longer used there and the public is quite opposed, thereby making it a de facto nuclear-free country. This ban includes its 12 nmi (22-kilometer; 14-mile) territorial waters as per the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.[ citation needed ]

Official U.S. Navy policy is "not to deploy nuclear weapons aboard surface ships, naval aircraft, attack submarines, or guided missile submarines. However, we do not discuss the presence or absence of nuclear weapons aboard specific ships, submarines, or aircraft.” [19] Because the U.S. Navy refuses to confirm whether any particular ship is or is not carrying nuclear weapons, this was an effective ban on the ships' entry into New Zealand territory. In response, the United States partially suspended New Zealand from the ANZUS military alliance. President Ronald Reagan stated that New Zealand was "a friend, but not an ally". [20]

Nuclear weapons and Israel

The United States also tolerates Israel's deliberate ambiguity as to whether Israel has nuclear weapons. Israel is not a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Therefore, by not acknowledging that Israel likely has nuclear weapons, the US avoids having to sanction it for violating American anti-proliferation law. [21]

Historical Examples

East and West Germany

After West Germany gave up its "Hallstein Doctrine" of ending diplomatic relations with any country recognizing East Germany (thus implicitly following a "one-Germany policy"), West Germany turned to a policy of virtually or de facto recognizing East Germany in the 1970s, despite still maintaining several policies in accordance with the fictive but de jure legal principle of there being only one Germany.

East German citizens were treated as West German citizens upon arrival in West Germany and exports to East Germany were treated as if they were domestic trade. That created a deliberately ambiguous policy that reconciled the demand by the rest of the world for West Germany to acknowledge the existence of East Germany and the desire by the vast majority of West German politicians to avoid recognizing German partition as permanent.[ citation needed ]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuclear warfare</span> Military conflict that deploys nuclear weaponry

Nuclear warfare, also known as atomic warfare, is a military conflict or prepared political strategy that deploys nuclear weaponry. Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction; in contrast to conventional warfare, nuclear warfare can produce destruction in a much shorter time and can have a long-lasting radiological result. A major nuclear exchange would likely have long-term effects, primarily from the fallout released, and could also lead to secondary effects, such as "nuclear winter", nuclear famine, and societal collapse. A global thermonuclear war with Cold War-era stockpiles, or even with the current smaller stockpiles, may lead to various scenarios including the human extinction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">No first use</span> Refrainment from using weapons of mass destruction unless attacked with them first

In nuclear ethics and deterrence theory, no first use (NFU) refers to a type of pledge or policy wherein a nuclear power formally refrains from the use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in warfare, except for as a second strike in retaliation to an attack by an enemy power using WMD. Such a pledge would allow for a unique state of affairs in which a given nuclear power can be engaged in a conflict of conventional weaponry while it formally forswears any of the strategic advantages of nuclear weapons, provided the enemy power does not possess or utilize any such weapons of their own. The concept is primarily invoked in reference to nuclear mutually assured destruction but has also been applied to chemical and biological warfare, as is the case of the official WMD policy of India.

One China is a phrase describing the international relationship between the People's Republic of China (PRC) based on Mainland China, and the Republic of China (ROC) based on Taiwan Area. "One China" asserts that there is only one de jure Chinese nation despite the de facto division between the two rival governments in the aftermath of the Chinese Civil War. The term may refer, in alphabetical order, to one of the following:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">China–United States relations</span> Bilateral relations

The relationship between the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the United States of America (USA) has been complex and at times tense since the establishment of the PRC and the retreat of the government of the Republic of China to Taiwan in 1949. Since the normalization of relations in the 1970s, the US–China relationship has been marked by numerous perennial disputes including the political status of Taiwan, territorial disputes in the South China Sea, and more recently the treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. They have significant economic ties and are significantly intertwined, yet they also have a global hegemonic great power rivalry. As of 2023, China and the United States are the world's second-largest and largest economies by nominal GDP, as well as the largest and second-largest economies by GDP (PPP) respectively. Collectively, they account for 44.2% of the global nominal GDP, and 34.7% of global PPP-adjusted GDP.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">China and weapons of mass destruction</span>

The People's Republic of China has developed and possesses weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and nuclear weapons. The first of China's nuclear weapons tests took place in 1964, and its first hydrogen bomb test occurred in 1966 at Lop Nur. Tests continued until 1996, when the country signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), but did not ratify it. China acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in 1984 and ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in 1997.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Israel and weapons of mass destruction</span>

Israel is believed to possess weapons of mass destruction, and to be one of four nuclear-armed countries not recognized as a Nuclear Weapons State by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The US Congress Office of Technology Assessment has recorded Israel as a country generally reported as having undeclared chemical warfare capabilities, and an offensive biological warfare program. Officially, Israel neither confirms nor denies possessing nuclear weapons.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States foreign policy toward the People's Republic of China</span>

The United States foreign policy toward the People's Republic of China originated during the Cold War. At that time, the U.S. had a containment policy against communist states. The leaked Pentagon Papers indicated the efforts by the U.S. to contain China through military actions undertaken in the Vietnam War. The containment policy centered around an island chain strategy. President Richard Nixon's China rapprochement signaled a shift in focus to gain leverage in containing the Soviet Union. Formal diplomatic ties between the U.S. and China were established in 1979, and with normalized trade relations since 2000, the U.S. and China have been linked by closer economic ties and more cordial relations. In his first term as U.S. president, Barack Obama said, "We want China to succeed and prosper. It's good for the United States if China continues on the path of development that it's on".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Russia–United States relations</span> Bilateral relations

The United States and Russia maintain one of the most important, critical, and strategic foreign relations in the world. Both nations have shared interests in nuclear safety and security, nonproliferation, counterterrorism, and space exploration. Due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, relations became very tense after the United States imposed sanctions against Russia. Russia placed the United States on a list of "unfriendly countries", along with South Korea, Taiwan, European Union members, NATO members, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Micronesia, Japan and Ukraine.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">ANZUS</span> 1951 collective security treaty between Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S.

The Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty is a 1951 collective security agreement initially formed as a trilateral agreement between Australia, New Zealand, and the United States; and from 1986 an agreement between New Zealand and Australia, and separately, Australia and the United States, to co-operate on military matters in the Pacific Ocean region, although today the treaty is taken to relate to conflicts worldwide. It provides that an armed attack on any of the three parties would be dangerous to the others, and that each should act to meet the common threat. It set up a committee of foreign ministers that can meet for consultation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Turkey–United States relations</span> Bilateral relations

The Republic of Turkey (Türkiye) and the United States of America established diplomatic relations in 1927. Relations after World War II evolved from the Second Cairo Conference in December 1943 and Turkey's entrance into World War II on the side of the Allies in February 1945. Later that year, Turkey became a charter member of the United Nations. Since 1945, both countries advanced ties under liberal international order, put forward by the US, through a set of global, rule-based, structured relationships based on political, and economic liberalism. As a consequence relationships advanced under G20, OECD, Council of Europe, OSCE, WTO, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, IMF, the World Bank and the Turkey in NATO.

Joe Biden, President of the United States, served as Vice President from 2009 to 2017 and in the United States Senate from 1973 until 2009. A member of the Democratic Party, he made his second presidential run in 2008, later being announced as Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's running mate in 2008. He was elected vice president in 2008 and re-elected in 2012. In April 2019, Biden announced his 2020 presidential campaign. He became the presumptive Democratic nominee in April 2020, was formally nominated by the Democratic Party in August 2020, and defeated Republican incumbent Donald Trump in the November 2020 election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Taiwan–United States relations</span> Bilateral relations

After the United States established diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1979 and recognized Beijing as the only legal government of China, Taiwan–United States relations became unofficial and informal following terms of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which allows the United States to have relations with the Taiwanese people and their government, whose name is not specified. U.S.–Taiwan relations were further informally grounded in the Six Assurances in response to the third communiqué on the establishment of US–PRC relations. The Taiwan Travel Act, passed by the U.S. Congress on March 16, 2018, allows high-level U.S. officials to visit Taiwan and vice versa. Both sides have since signed a consular agreement formalizing their existent consular relations on September 13, 2019. The US government removed self-imposed restrictions on executive branch contacts with Taiwan on January 9, 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration</span> United States foreign policy from 2009 to 2017

The term Obama Doctrine is frequently used to describe the principles of US foreign policy under the Obama administration (2009–2017). He relied chiefly on his two highly experienced Secretaries of State—Hillary Clinton (2009–2013) and John Kerry (2013–2017)—and Vice President Joe Biden. Main themes include a reliance on negotiation and collaboration rather than confrontation or unilateralism.

This timeline of nuclear weapons development is a chronological catalog of the evolution of nuclear weapons rooting from the development of the science surrounding nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. In addition to the scientific advancements, this timeline also includes several political events relating to the development of nuclear weapons. The availability of intelligence on recent advancements in nuclear weapons of several major countries is limited because of the classification of technical knowledge of nuclear weapons development.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Quadrilateral Security Dialogue</span> Strategic dialogue between Australia, India, Japan, and the United States

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QSD), commonly known as the Quad, is a strategic security dialogue between Australia, India, Japan, and the United States that is maintained by talks between member countries. The dialogue was initiated in 2007 by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, with the support of Australian Prime Minister John Howard, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. The dialogue was paralleled by joint military exercises of an unprecedented scale, titled Exercise Malabar. The diplomatic and military arrangement was widely viewed as a response to increased Chinese economic and military power.

Israel and the Bomb is a documentary film about nuclear weapons and Israel and policy of "nuclear ambiguity", produced and directed by Florian Hartung and Dirk Pohlmann, It was broadcast by ARTE on November 7, 2012.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jake Sullivan</span> American attorney and politician (born 1976)

Jacob Jeremiah Sullivan is an American attorney serving since 2021 as the U.S. National Security Advisor. He previously served as Director of Policy to President Barack Obama, National Security Advisor to then-Vice President Biden and Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary Hillary Clinton at the U.S. Department of State. Sullivan also served as senior advisor to the U.S. federal government at the Iran nuclear negotiations and senior policy advisor to Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, as well as visiting professor at Yale Law School. On November 23, 2020, President-elect Biden announced that Sullivan would be appointed the United States National Security Advisor. He took office on January 20, 2021.

The foreign policy of the Joe Biden administration emphasizes the repair of the United States' alliances, which Biden argues were damaged during the Trump administration. The administration's goal is to restore the United States to a "position of trusted leadership" among global democracies in order to address challenges posed by Russia and China. Both Biden and his Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin have repeatedly emphasized that no other world power should be able to surpass the United States, either militarily or economically. Biden's foreign policy has been described as having ideological underpinnings in mid-twentieth century liberal internationalism, American exceptionalism, and pragmatism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">AUKUS</span> Australia–UK–US security partnership

AUKUS, also styled as Aukus, is a trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States intended to "promote a free and open Indo-Pacific that is secure and stable." Initially announced on 15 September 2021, the partnership involves two lines of effort referred to as pillars. Pillar 1 focuses on Australia acquiring nuclear-powered attack submarines and the rotational basing of US and UK nuclear-powered attack submarines in Australia. Pillar 2 entails the collaborative development of advanced capabilities in six technological areas: undersea capabilities, quantum technologies, artificial intelligence and autonomy, advanced cyber, hypersonic and counter-hypersonic capabilities, and electronic warfare; and in two broader functional areas: innovation and information sharing.

References

  1. ↑ "What is the right amount of 'Strategic Ambiguity'?". www.theuncertaintyproject.org. Retrieved 2023-10-16.
  2. ↑ Chan, Gerald (1985). "The "Two-Chinas" Problem and the Olympic Formula". Pacific Affairs. 58 (3): 473–490. doi:10.2307/2759241. JSTOR   2759241.
  3. ↑ Sultan, Adil (August 2018). "India's Nuclear Doctrine: A Case of Strategic Dissonance or Deliberate Ambiguity". IPRI Journal. VIII (2): 26–52. doi: 10.31945/iprij.180202 . ISSN   1684-9787. S2CID   150024560.
  4. ↑ Bronner, Ethan (October 13, 2010). "Vague, Opaque and Ambiguous — Israel's Hush-Hush Nuclear Policy". The New York Times. Retrieved March 6, 2012.
  5. ↑ "Nuclear weapons – Israel". Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved July 1, 2007.
  6. ↑ staff, T. O. I. "IDF official said to confirm attack in Syria: 'First strike on Iranian targets'". www.timesofisrael.com.
  7. ↑ "U.S. officials confirm Israel launched pre-dawn airstrike on Syria". NBC News. 9 April 2018.
  8. ↑ "From Russia with Menace". The Times. 2 April 2015. Retrieved 2 April 2015.
  9. ↑ "The UK's nuclear deterrent: what you need to know". GOV.UK. Retrieved 2023-10-17.
  10. ↑ Bush, Richard (2016). The United States Security Partnership with Taiwan (PDF). Vol. Asian alliances working paper series, paper 7. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
  11. ↑ "Bush vows 'whatever it takes' to defend Taiwan". CNN TV. 2001-04-25. Retrieved 2007-02-05.
  12. ↑ "Bush Opposes Taiwan Independence". Fox News . 2003-12-09. Retrieved 2016-02-18.
  13. ↑ Cooper, Zack (2022-09-19). "The Fourth Taiwan Strait Slip-Up". American Enterprise Institute - AEI. Retrieved 2023-07-25.
  14. ↑ "China vows no concessions on Taiwan after Biden comments". AP NEWS. 2021-10-22. Retrieved 2021-10-22.
  15. ↑ Sanger, David E. (2021-10-22). "Biden Said the U.S. Would Protect Taiwan. But It's Not That Clear-Cut". The New York Times.
  16. ↑ "Biden: US would intervene with military to defend Taiwan". ABC News. Retrieved 2022-05-24.
  17. ↑ Wordsworth, Dot (8 June 2013). "What, exactly, is a 'red line'?". The Spectator magazine. Retrieved 30 July 2013.
  18. ↑ Kessler, Glenn (2013-09-06). "Analysis | President Obama and the 'red line' on Syria's chemical weapons". Washington Post. ISSN   0190-8286 . Retrieved 2018-06-14.
  19. ↑ "OPNAVINST 5721.1F, RELEASE OF INFORMATION ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND ON NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES OF U.S. FORCES" (PDF).
  20. ↑ Lange, David (1990). Nuclear Free: The New Zealand Way: Books: David Lange, Michael Gifkins. Penguin Books. ISBN   0140145192.
  21. ↑ Cohen, Abner; Burr, William (2016-12-08). "What the U.S. Government Really Thought of Israel's Apparent 1979 Nuclear Test". Politico.

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.