Volume 03 Issue 08-2023
15
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2222)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
08
P
AGES
:
15-21
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
713
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
ABSTRACT
This article discusses the pursuing diplomatic efforts of USA. The optimal approach for the United States to address
the Taiwan issue and maintain regional stability would be to adopt a strategic clarity policy. Alternative policy options
such as strategic ambiguity and strategic reassurance have significant drawbacks and risks. Strategic ambiguity can
increase the likelihood of misinterpretation and hostility. Strategic reassurance may be viewed as provocative by
China, potentially damaging US-China relations.
KEYWORDS
Diplomatic efforts, optimal approach, United States, Taiwan issue, regional stability.
INTRODUCTION
Problem: The likelihood of violence over Taiwan, which
China sees as a rebellious province, has increased as a
result of China's expanding military might and
assertiveness in the Asia-Pacific region (Junhua
Zhang,2022). This has led to unrest and uncertainty,
especially in Taiwan, which feels more and more at risk
from Chinese invasion.
The US's support for Taiwan's democratic government
is in line with its commitment to democracy and human
rights. The United States should adopt a strategic
clarity policy that commits to protecting Taiwan from
any hostile actions by China. Taiwan plays a vital role as
a trading partner and producer of electronic
components and semiconductors that are essential to
various industries and global supply chains. According
to the International Trade Administration (2021),
Taiwan was the U.S.'s 9th largest trading partner, with
a total trade value of $104.3 billion. Additionally, the
U.S. has been the largest supplier of arms to Taiwan,
with a total value of $5.1 billion in 2020. A military
conflict over Taiwan could disrupt global supply chains
and have significant consequences for the technology
industry. Therefore, it is crucial for the United States to
maintain a stable economic partnership with Taiwan
Research Article
PURSUING DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS OF USA
Submission Date:
Aug 07, 2023,
Accepted Date:
Aug 12, 2023,
Published Date:
Aug 17, 2023
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/ijhps/Volume03Issue08-04
Azlarkhon B. Achilov
Lecturer Tashkent State University of Oriental Studies Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://theusajournals.
com/index.php/ijhps
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 03 Issue 08-2023
16
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2222)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
08
P
AGES
:
15-21
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
713
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
through committing to protect its defence, which will
promote economic growth and job prospects for the
U.S. This policy option is the most effective approach
to maintain regional stability and protect U.S. interests.
Section 1. Recommended strategy
A firm commitment to protecting Taiwan's defence
could deter potential Chinese aggression, reducing the
risk of conflict and avoiding the costs of military
confrontation. Historical evidence supports the idea
that protecting Taiwan could deter potential Chinese
aggression. In the 1950s, the US pledged to protect
Taiwan from potential Chinese aggression. The
commitment acted as a deterrent against China's
potential large-scale invasion of Taiwan. The
involvement of two U.S. aircraft carriers during the
1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis influenced China's decision to
avoid military intervention against Taiwan (Douglas
Porch,1999)
US actions may be viewed by China as limiting its
growth, increasing tensions and the risk of conflict.
Furthermore, nearby countries, especially those with
close economic ties to China, may view a clear
commitment to protect Taiwan's security as a
destabilising and potentially harmful measure to their
own interests. As a close U.S. ally and sharing concerns
about China's expansion in the region, Japan might
support the strategic clarity policy. In 2021, the
Japanese Deputy Prime Minister Taro As stated that
Japan would need to defend Taiwan with the United
States if the island were attacked, signalling Japan's
willingness to be involved in Taiwan's defence.
Similarly, South Korea, as another U.S. ally, may
support the policy, although its stance would likely be
more cautious due to its proximity to China and
reliance on the Chinese market. In 2020, South Korea
refrained from joining a statement criticizing China's
new security law in Hong Kong, illustrating its careful
balancing act between the U.S. and China (Tae-jun
Kang, 2020). To implement the strategic clarity policy,
the US should declare its commitment to protect
Taiwan, conduct joint military exercises in areas such as
maritime security, anti-submarine warfare, and air
defence, establish direct communication between US
and Taiwanese defence authorities, and increase
intelligence sharing to detect and counter Chinese
threats. The United States should increase its military
presence in the Western Pacific to deter potential
aggression from China. It is crucial to implement the
specified actions within a set timeframe and
designated
locations,
supported
by
accurate
quantitative data and allocated financial resources for
each phase.
The optimal approach for the United States to address
the Taiwan issue and maintain regional stability would
be to adopt a strategic clarity policy. Alternative policy
options such as strategic ambiguity and strategic
reassurance have significant drawbacks and risks.
Strategic ambiguity can increase the likelihood of
misinterpretation and hostility. Strategic reassurance
may be viewed as provocative by China, potentially
damaging US-China relations. Therefore, the US must
adopt a strategic clarity policy to effectively address
the Taiwan issue and protect its interests in the Asia-
Pacific region.
Section 2. Strategic Policy Options
Option One, the recommended option, in further detail
In this part, evaluated the recommended policy option
of strategic clarity for Taiwan, weighing the potential
benefits and drawbacks, as well as considering the
assumptions and interests at play.
A firm commitment to protect Taiwan's defence could
act as a strong deterrent against potential Chinese
Volume 03 Issue 08-2023
17
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2222)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
08
P
AGES
:
15-21
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
713
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
aggression, reducing the likelihood of conflict and
avoiding the costs of a military confrontation. The
modernization of China's military and its assertive
behaviour in the region have escalated tensions and
raised the likelihood of conflict regarding Taiwan. In
March 2021, China carried out military drills near
Taiwan, utilising numerous warplanes and ships (Brian
Hioe, 2023). Additionally, China has issued multiple
warnings against external involvement in the Taiwan
matter. A resolute pledge to safeguard Taiwan could
serve as a potent deterrent against possible Chinese
hostility, lessening the likelihood of strife and
sidestepping the expenses of armed conflict.
A policy would demonstrate the US's commitment to
its allies and partners in the region, building trust and
bolstering confidence in the US's security guarantees.
The United States maintains enduring alliances and
partnerships in the Asia-Pacific region, such as with
Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines (The
White House, 2022, p. 8). These nations are
apprehensive about the increasing assertiveness of
China and the possible hazards to regional security and
stability. A resolute pledge to safeguard Taiwan could
exhibit the United States' dedication to its associates
and collaborators in the area, enhancing these
associations and fostering trust in the United States'
capacity to maintain regional security.
A policy would signal US intentions and priorities in the
Asia-Pacific region to China and other regional actors.
The US has a vested interest in maintaining stability and
security in the Asia-Pacific region. A potential conflict
involving Taiwan could have significant consequences
for regional security and US interests. A commitment
to defend Taiwan would signal US intentions and
priorities in the Asia-Pacific region, reducing
miscalculation risk and promoting stability and
security.
A commitment to defend Taiwan may be perceived as
a challenge to China's sovereignty and escalate the
possibility of military confrontation.
China has cautioned against external intervention in
the Taiwan matter and regards Taiwan as an
inseparable part of its territory. China has augmented
its military capabilities and executed military drills in
close proximity to Taiwan, possibly as a demonstration
of power. A commitment to defend Taiwan may be
perceived as provocative by China, potentially leading
to escalation and military conflict.
Strategic clarity policy may escalate US-China tensions,
already strained over trade, human rights, and the
South China Sea. The current relationship between the
US and China is complex and characterised by
competition and tension. The US's former strategic
ambiguity policy provided flexibility in its relationship
with China, whereas a strategic clarity policy may be
viewed as a more direct challenge to China's interests
and sovereignty. A firm pledge to protect Taiwan may
be viewed by China as a direct affront to its interests
and sovereignty, intensifying tensions between the US
and China and potentially causing a decline in their
overall relationship.
Option Two, an alternative option.
Strategic ambiguity is a policy approach where the US
refrains from explicitly committing to defending
Taiwan against Chinese aggression, opting to maintain
an intentionally vague stance. The objective of this
approach is to preserve flexibility in the United States'
reaction to a possible Taiwan conflict and prevent the
escalation of tensions with China. The "One China
Policy" is an example of strategic ambiguity, as it
acknowledges China's sovereignty over Taiwan
without explicitly recognising Taiwan as an
independent state. The policy has been credited with
Volume 03 Issue 08-2023
18
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2222)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
08
P
AGES
:
15-21
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
713
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
maintaining regional stability, but criticised for
insufficient
support
of
Taiwan's
democratic
government and possible encouragement of China's
aggressive actions towards Taiwan.
The US may avoid provoking China by not pledging to
defend Taiwan. China has frequently cautioned against
US meddling in Taiwan, calling it a violation of its
sovereignty. China's foreign ministry spokesperson
advised the US to "stop any form of official exchanges
with Taiwan, handle the Taiwan question cautiously,
and refrain from sending any wrong signals to Taiwan
independence forces" after a congressional delegation
visited Taiwan in April 2021. China may respond
militarily if the US declares its support for Taiwan.
Strategic ambiguity enables the US to retain flexibility
in its response to a possible Taiwan conflict, instead of
being bound to a particular action. Strategic ambiguity
policy enables the US to maintain flexibility and keep
its options open in response to changing
circumstances. In a Taiwan crisis, the US may opt for
military aid to Taiwan without engaging in a full-scale
military operation. Explicitly committing to defending
Taiwan could limit the US's options and increase the
risk of escalation if circumstances change.
Failure to defend Taiwan could have detrimental
repercussions for the United States' credibility and
reputation in the region. If the United States were to
back down or fail to honour its commitment to defend
Taiwan, its credibility and reputation as an ally could
suffer. This may have far-reaching effects on the
United States' relationships with allies and partners in
the region, as well as its overall influence and standing.
Some experts and commentators criticised the United
States' response to the Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1996 as a
failure to stand up to China and defend its allies. This
could have had far-reaching effects on U.S. relations in
the region.
If the US appears less committed to defending Taiwan,
China may be more inclined to use military force,
raising the risk of regional conflict. China considers
Taiwan a rebellious province that should be reunited
with the mainland, even though military means,
causing a rise in military capabilities and tensions in the
area. Unclear US policy towards Taiwan may worsen
tensions and heighten the risk of conflict or crisis. In
1996, the US deployed two aircraft carrier battle
groups to the Taiwan Strait Crisis, which increased
tensions and the possibility of military conflict.
Option Three, another alternative option
Strategic reassurance is a political approach aimed at
convincing China that the US does not perceive its
global ascent as a threat to American interests and that
the US does not seek to contain China. This approach is
aimed at strengthening trust and cooperation
between the two nations, which ultimately reduces the
likelihood of conflict. Strategic reassurance initiatives
include Obama's pivot to Asia in 2011, which aimed to
expand U.S. involvement in the region and strengthen
closer relations with allies. This policy involved
increasing American military resources in the area and
negotiating a trade deal on the TPP. This policy has
been criticized for being insufficient to address China's
problems and potentially exacerbating tensions
between the US and China.
A policy of strategic reassurance through trust and
cooperation with China can foster collaboration on
global issues, including climate change, nuclear
proliferation, and pandemic response. The US and
China are prominent global powers with substantial
influence on global affairs. Collaboration can lead to
greater achievements than individual efforts. The US
and China were significant contributors to the Paris
Agreement, which seeks to decrease worldwide
greenhouse gas emissions. A strategic reassurance
Volume 03 Issue 08-2023
19
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2222)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
08
P
AGES
:
15-21
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
713
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
policy can enhance global cooperation and stability
while promoting prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region by
fostering collaboration between the US and China.
A strategic reassurance policy can mitigate the risk of
miscalculation and misunderstanding between the US
and China by clarifying their intentions and priorities.
Misinterpretations and miscalculations may result in
inadvertent outcomes and potentially exacerbate
international tensions. A strategic reassurance policy
can
promote
regional
stability
and
reduce
miscalculation risks by building trust and cooperation
with China. The South China Sea has witnessed
multiple US-China close encounters, prompting
concerns over potential miscalculation and escalation.
A strategic reassurance policy can mitigate risks by
fostering cooperation and understanding between the
two nations.
Strategic reassurance policies may have potential
drawbacks. Strategic reassurance policy may be
interpreted as a sign of weakness by China, potentially
encouraging a more assertive foreign policy. China's
efforts to enhance its regional influence involve
military modernization and territorial claims in the
South China Sea. A strategic reassurance policy aimed
at reassuring China may be perceived as neglecting the
concerns of US allies and partners in the region. Critics
of the Obama administration's Asia rebalance policy
contended that it was perceived as feeble by China,
which persisted in its aggressive foreign policy in the
area.
Section 3. Background
The matter of Taiwan has been a persistent cause of
strain in the Asia-Pacific area. Following the conclusion
of the Chinese civil war in 1949, the Communist Party
assumed governance over mainland China while the
vanquished Nationalist Party sought refuge in Taiwan,
where they established the Republic of China.
Subsequently, Taiwan has operated as a de facto
autonomous entity, possessing its own governance,
economic system, and armed forces. Notwithstanding,
China maintains its assertion that Taiwan is an integral
part of its sovereign territory and has pledged to
employ military means if required to achieve its
reunification.
The subject under consideration pertains to the policy
of the United States towards Taiwan, a democratic
island nation located in the western Pacific, which is
regarded as a separatist province by China. The United
States has maintained a longstanding diplomatic
association with Taiwan, which can be traced back to
the Chinese civil war and the formation of the People's
Republic of China in 1949. The United States has
extended military and economic assistance to Taiwan
and sustains informal diplomatic ties with the territory.
The United States does not formally acknowledge
Taiwan as an independent nation and has adopted a
strategic ambiguity approach to prevent any potential
provocation of China. The United States has adopted a
policy of strategic ambiguity concerning Taiwan,
refraining from making explicit commitments to
defend it or according it explicit recognition as an
independent state. In recent years, the Taiwan matter
has escalated in controversy due to China's heightened
assertiveness in the region and Taiwan's increased
integration into the global economy. China has
augmented its military prowess and executed military
drills in close proximity to Taiwan, alongside
intensifying its diplomatic coercion on nations to
acknowledge Taiwan as an integral part of China. The
United States has augmented its military deployment
in the area and has articulated apprehension regarding
China's conduct in the Taiwan Strait.
Volume 03 Issue 08-2023
20
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2222)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
08
P
AGES
:
15-21
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
713
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
It is imperative for the United States to meticulously
evaluate the possible benefits and drawbacks of every
policy alternative and opt for a path of action that
optimally caters to its interests in the Asia-Pacific area.
The ramifications of this decision are extensive in terms
of regional security and stability, as well as the United
States' associations with China and its regional allies.
One potential alternative strategy to deter China from
potential aggression towards Taiwan is the
implementation of a policy of strategic clarity. This
policy would involve a clear and unambiguous
commitment to defend Taiwan, which would also
serve to provide transparency regarding the United
States' intentions and priorities in the region. This
policy alternative would necessitate heightened
military collaboration with Taiwan and a possible
deployment of supplementary United States military
resources to the area. The selection of policy will
ultimately hinge on various factors, such as the
perceived advantages and disadvantages of each
alternative, the current state of US-China relations, and
the perspectives of significant stakeholders and allies
in the Asia-Pacific area. There are several reasons why
adopting a policy of strategic clarity may be a more
effective option in relation to Taiwan. Initially, a
distinct pledge to safeguard Taiwan would serve as a
formidable deterrent against potential Chinese
aggressions, reducing the likelihood of confrontation
and circumventing the expenses of a military
confrontation. The modernization of China's military
and its assertive behaviour in the region have escalated
tensions and raised the likelihood of conflict regarding
Taiwan. In March 2021, China carried out military drills
in the vicinity of Taiwan, deploying numerous
warplanes and ships. The Chinese government has
consistently cautioned against external intervention in
the Taiwan matter. Furthermore, a resolute pledge to
safeguard Taiwan may enhance the United States'
alliances and partnerships in the area, fostering
reliance and reinforcing assurance in the United States'
security assurances. The United States maintains
enduring alliances and partnerships in the Asia-Pacific
region, specifically with Japan, South Korea, Australia,
and the Philippines. The increasing assertiveness of
China and its potential impact on regional security and
stability have raised concerns among these nations.
The efficacy of a resolute pledge to safeguard Taiwan
is reinforced by past instances in history. In the 1950s,
the United States established a definitive pledge to
safeguard Taiwan in the event of any potential
hostilities initiated by China. The aforementioned
commitment acted as a preventive measure against
China, thereby dissuading them from executing a
massive incursion into Taiwan. The involvement of two
U.S. aircraft carriers in the 1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis was
instrumental in deterring China from resorting to
military intervention against Taiwan.
The following policy alternative entails deliberately
maintaining an equivocal stance on the degree of
dedication to Taiwan with the aim of circumventing
any
instigation
of
China.
Nevertheless, this
methodology possesses various limitations. The lack of
clarity regarding the United States' intentions and
priorities in the region may result in confusion and
uncertainty, thereby elevating the likelihood of
miscalculation and military conflict. Moreover, the
utilisation of strategic ambiguity could be perceived as
a manifestation of vulnerability by China, which may in
turn bolster China's inclination to adopt a more
assertive approach towards its foreign policy. During
the Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1996, the United States
implemented a policy of strategic ambiguity in
response to China's missile tests near Taiwan. The
United States' position regarding intervention in the
Volume 03 Issue 08-2023
21
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2222)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
08
P
AGES
:
15-21
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
713
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
event of a conflict was ambiguous, resulting in a state
of uncertainty and unease in the region.
The strategic reassurance policy option pertains to the
endeavour of assuring China that the United States is
not inclined towards constraining its ascension as a
global power. This approach involves fostering trust
and cooperation between the two nations.
Nevertheless, this methodology also presents various
limitations. The act of complying with China's demands
or not fully addressing the apprehensions of American
allies in the Asia-Pacific area could be interpreted as a
sign of weakness. Moreover, the act of providing
strategic reassurance could be perceived as a display of
vulnerability by China, which may in turn bolster
China's inclination to adopt a more assertive approach
towards its foreign affairs.
The strategic "pivot" or "rebalance" to Asia,
announced by U.S. President Barack Obama in 2011,
aimed to enhance U.S. engagement with the region
and foster stronger relationships with U.S. allies.
However, some critics contended that the initiative did
not adequately address China's concerns and could
potentially escalate tensions between the U.S. and
China. As an example, the "reset" policy between the
United States and Russia during the Obama
administration aimed at fostering trust and
cooperation. However, this policy did not prevent
Russia from invading Crimea in 2014, and it led to
increased tensions between the United States and its
European allies. This example demonstrates that
prioritizing reassurance over clear commitments to
allies can inadvertently embolden adversaries and
undermine regional stability.
CONCLUSION
Within this context, it can be inferred that the Strategic
Clarity option presents the most efficacious strategy
for upholding regional stability and safeguarding
Taiwan. The aforementioned historical instances serve
to illustrate the significance of a distinct dedication in
dissuading hostility and upholding steadiness. The
effectiveness of Options Two (Strategic Ambiguity)
and Three (Strategic Reassurance) in addressing the
challenges presented by China's assertiveness in the
region is comparatively lower, as indicated by the
examples provided.
REFERENCES
1.
Dadabaev, T. (2006). Japan’s Central Asian
Diplomacy and Its Implications. Central Asia-
Caucasus Institute Analyst, 9.
2.
Gleason, G. (2006). The Uzbek Expulsion US
Forces and in Central Asia. Problems of Post-
Communism, 53(2), 49-60.
3.
Blank, S. (2006). America strikes back?
Geopolitical rivalry in Central Asia and the
Caucasus. CACI Analyst, 17.
4.
Christensen, T. J. (2006). Fostering stability or
creating a monster? The rise of China and US
policy toward East Asia. International security,
31(1), 81-126.
5.
Larson, D. W., & Shevchenko, A. (2010). Status
seekers: Chinese and Russian responses to US
primacy. International security, 34(4), 63-95.
6.
Sayfullaev, D. B. (2020). Conceptual Basis of the
Modern West and East Diplomacy Study. J.
Legal Ethical & Regul. Isses, 23, 1.
7.
Sayfullaev, D. (2016). Parliamentary Diplomacy
In Making Of Foreign Policy. The Advance
Science Journal of International Relations, 1(1),
52-54.
