IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/asseca/v12y2025i2p241-267.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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
    ---><---

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.