IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/asseca/v12y2025i2p241-267.html

The Death of ‘Strategic Ambiguity’: Why the United States Abandoned Longstanding Policies Towards China and Taiwan

Author

Listed:
  • Shale Horowitz

Abstract

President Nixon realigned US Cold War policies by withdrawing formal support for the Taiwan government’s sovereignty, without endorsing China’s position that Taiwan was rightfully a Chinese province. Then, after Carter withdrew the US promise to intervene militarily to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion, Congress and subsequent presidents continued to support Taiwan’s de facto independence—thus adopting a posture of ‘strategic ambiguity’. From the 1980s, trade and investment with China mushroomed, and US leaders hoped that China was evolving into a status quo stakeholder and maybe also a democracy. The Trump and Biden administrations abandoned many of these longstanding US policies. A bargaining framework is used to evaluate why. China’s growth gradually but significantly altered its comparative advantage and relative military power. Taiwanese identity and security policy evolved. Xi Jinping’s ‘New Era’ ideology and changing domestic and foreign policies put a rising China on a collision course with the US-led regional and world order. Presidents Trump and Biden responded by making the US military defence of Taiwan—as part of a general revamp of economic and security policies towards China—one of the few areas of bipartisan consensus. Any retreat from the new consensus risks a major geopolitical crisis.

Suggested Citation

  • Shale Horowitz, 2025. "The Death of ‘Strategic Ambiguity’: Why the United States Abandoned Longstanding Policies Towards China and Taiwan," Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, , vol. 12(2), pages 241-267, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:asseca:v:12:y:2025:i:2:p:241-267
    DOI: 10.1177/23477970251337542
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23477970251337542
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/23477970251337542?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
    2. Ciwan M. Can & Anson Chan, 2022. "Preventive or Revisionist Challenge During Power Transition? The Case of China–USA Strategic Competition," Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, , vol. 9(1), pages 7-25, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Antidumping law as a collusive device," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 95-122, February.
    2. Lohmann, Susanne, 1997. "Partisan control of the money supply and decentralized appointment powers," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 225-246, May.
    3. Leonardo-Fabio Morales & Mauricio Quiñones & Eleonora Dávalos & Luis-Felipe Gaviria, 2025. "Spatial spillover effects in the labour market in a middle-income country," Spatial Economic Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 53-71, January.
    4. Seok-ju Cho & John Duggan, 2015. "A folk theorem for the one-dimensional spatial bargaining model," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 44(4), pages 933-948, November.
    5. Mohr, Ernst, 1990. "Courts of appeal, bureaucracies and conditional project permits: The role of negotiating non-exclusive property rights over the environment," Kiel Working Papers 408, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    6. Laruelle, Annick & Valenciano, Federico, 2008. "Noncooperative foundations of bargaining power in committees and the Shapley-Shubik index," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 341-353, May.
    7. Núñez, Matías & Laslier, Jean-François, 2015. "Bargaining through Approval," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 63-73.
    8. Gantner, Anita & Horn, Kristian & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2016. "Fair and efficient division through unanimity bargaining when claims are subjective," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 56-73.
    9. Simon Hug & Tobias Schulz, 2007. "Referendums in the EU’s constitution building process," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 177-218, June.
    10. Norman, Peter, 2002. "Legislative Bargaining and Coalition Formation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 322-353, February.
    11. Farboodi, Maryam & Jarosch, Gregor & Menzio, Guido & Wiriadinata, Ursula, 2025. "Intermediation as rent extraction," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    12. Agnieszka Rusinowska & Ahmet Ozkardas, 2015. "On equilibrium payoffs in wage bargaining with discount rates varying in time," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 3(2), pages 181-199, October.
    13. Qian, Dong & Guo, Ju’e, 2014. "Research on the energy-saving and revenue sharing strategy of ESCOs under the uncertainty of the value of Energy Performance Contracting Projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 710-721.
    14. Radzvilas, Mantas, 2016. "Hypothetical Bargaining and the Equilibrium Selection Problem in Non-Cooperative Games," MPRA Paper 70248, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Guth, Werner & Ritzberger, Klaus & van Damme, Eric, 2004. "On the Nash bargaining solution with noise," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 697-713, June.
    16. Send, Jonas & Serena, Marco, 2022. "An empirical analysis of insistent bargaining," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    17. Shohei Yoshida, 2018. "Bargaining power and firm profits in asymmetric duopoly: an inverted-U relationship," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 124(2), pages 139-158, June.
    18. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim, 2024. "Consideration sets and reference points in a dynamic bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 381-403.
    19. Mauleon, Ana & Vannetelbosch, Vincent J., 2003. "Market competition and strike activity," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 737-758, May.
    20. Thoron, Sylvie & Sol, Emmanuel & Willinger, Marc, 2009. "Do binding agreements solve the social dilemma?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(11-12), pages 1271-1282, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:asseca:v:12:y:2025:i:2:p:241-267. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.