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

With regard to ambiguity and geopolitical policy opacity, India's Draft Nuclear Doctrine has been under scrutiny ever since it was updated in January 2003. [3]

Iraq

Saddam Hussein employed a policy of intentional ambiguity about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction prior to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. He persisted in a “cat and mouse” game with U.N. inspectors to try to avoid violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, while at the same time trying to ensure that the population and its neighbors (specifically Iran) still believed that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction. [4]

Israel

Israel is deliberately ambiguous as to whether or not it possesses nuclear weapons, which its commentators term "nuclear ambiguity" or "nuclear opacity". [5] It is a general consensus that Israel is in possession of nuclear weapons. [6]

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, [7] [8] 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. [9]

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. [10]

United States

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

Taiwan

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. [11] 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. [12] He later used more ambiguous language, stating in 2003 that "The United States policy is one China". [13]

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. [14]

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. [15] 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". [16]

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. [17]

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" [18] 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." [19]

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.” [20] 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". [21]

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. [22]

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 virtual/ 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 extinction of the human species.

Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy which posits that a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by an attacker on a nuclear-armed defender with second-strike capabilities would result in the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory of rational deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which, once armed, neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm.

<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.

Nuclear blackmail is a form of nuclear strategy in which an aggressor uses the threat of use of nuclear weapons to force an adversary to perform some action or make some concessions. It is a type of extortion that is related to brinkmanship.

The term One China 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 contentious 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">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">Israel–United States relations</span> Bilateral relations

Since the 1960s, the United States has been a strong supporter of Israel. It has played a key role in the promotion of good relations between Israel and its neighbouring Arab states—notably Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt—while holding off hostility from countries such as Syria and Iran. Relations with Israel are an important factor in the U.S. government's overall foreign policy in the Middle East, and the U.S. Congress has placed considerable importance on the maintenance of a supportive relationship.

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

Russia and the United States 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 Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, European Union members, NATO members, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Micronesia, 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 non-binding 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">Nuclear triad</span> Set of three types of nuclear-strike weapons

A nuclear triad is a three-pronged military force structure of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and strategic bombers with nuclear bombs and missiles. Countries build nuclear triads to eliminate an enemy's ability to destroy a nation's nuclear forces in a first-strike attack, which preserves their own ability to launch a second strike and therefore increases their nuclear deterrence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Samson Option</span> Israels deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons

The Samson Option is Israel's deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a "last resort" against a country whose military has invaded and/or destroyed much of Israel. Commentators also have employed the term to refer to situations where non-nuclear, non-Israeli actors have threatened conventional weapons retaliation, such as Yasser Arafat.

<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.

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.

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">Israel–Taiwan relations</span> Bilateral relations

Israel–Taiwan relations describe the relations between the State of Israel and the Republic of China (Taiwan), which are not official in light of Taiwan's international status, although the two countries have economic and commercial relations, and Israel has an Economic and Cultural Office in Taipei since 1993. The unofficial relations between the two countries are mainly expressed in the fields of science, trade and industry.

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

AUKUS, also styled as Aukus, is a trilateral security partnership for the Indo-Pacific region between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Announced on 15 September 2021, the partnership involves the US and the UK assisting Australia in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines. The partnership also includes cooperation on advanced cyber mechanisms, artificial intelligence and autonomy, quantum technologies, undersea capabilities, hypersonic and counter-hypersonic, electronic warfare, innovation and information sharing. The partnership will focus on military capability, distinguishing it from the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance that also includes New Zealand and Canada.

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. ↑ "Why Did the United States Invade Iraq in 2003?". 25 October 2012.
  5. ↑ Bronner, Ethan (October 13, 2010). "Vague, Opaque and Ambiguous — Israel's Hush-Hush Nuclear Policy". The New York Times. Retrieved March 6, 2012.
  6. ↑ "Nuclear weapons – Israel". Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved July 1, 2007.
  7. ↑ staff, T. O. I. "IDF official said to confirm attack in Syria: 'First strike on Iranian targets'". www.timesofisrael.com.
  8. ↑ "U.S. officials confirm Israel launched pre-dawn airstrike on Syria". NBC News. 9 April 2018.
  9. ↑ "From Russia with Menace". The Times. 2 April 2015. Retrieved 2 April 2015.
  10. ↑ "The UK's nuclear deterrent: what you need to know". GOV.UK. Retrieved 2023-10-17.
  11. ↑ Bush, Richard (2016). The United States Security Partnership with Taiwan (PDF). Vol. Asian alliances working paper series, paper 7. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
  12. ↑ "Bush vows 'whatever it takes' to defend Taiwan". CNN TV. 2001-04-25. Retrieved 2007-02-05.
  13. ↑ "Bush Opposes Taiwan Independence". Fox News . 2003-12-09. Retrieved 2016-02-18.
  14. ↑ Cooper, Zack (2022-09-19). "The Fourth Taiwan Strait Slip-Up". American Enterprise Institute - AEI. Retrieved 2023-07-25.
  15. ↑ "China vows no concessions on Taiwan after Biden comments". AP NEWS. 2021-10-22. Retrieved 2021-10-22.
  16. ↑ 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.
  17. ↑ "Biden: US would intervene with military to defend Taiwan". ABC News. Retrieved 2022-05-24.
  18. ↑ Wordsworth, Dot (8 June 2013). "What, exactly, is a 'red line'?". The Spectator magazine. Retrieved 30 July 2013.
  19. ↑ 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.
  20. ↑ "OPNAVINST 5721.1F, RELEASE OF INFORMATION ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND ON NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES OF U.S. FORCES" (PDF).
  21. ↑ Lange, David (1990). Nuclear Free: The New Zealand Way: Books: David Lange, Michael Gifkins. Penguin Books. ISBN   0140145192.
  22. ↑ 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.