Dear Mr./Mrs. President,
The United States’ foreign policy regarding the People’s Republic of China(PRC) and the Republic of China(ROC) has reached a critical point. As a member of your National Security Council, I want to advise you on the policy of Strategic Ambiguity in regards to Taiwan’s political status. While there's the risk of China deciding to forcibly move against Taiwan and the priority of navigating how to keep the U.S. away from conflict, I believe it to be in the U.S.’s best interest that we maintain Strategic Ambiguity. This is essential in preserving regional stability, deterring unilateral actions by the PRC, and upholding U.S. credibility in the Indo-Pacific region.
Fear of conflict:
Strategic Ambiguity prevents the PRC from assuming that the U.S. will not intervene militarily if Taiwan is attacked as we maintain a neutral position. Simultaneously, it discourages Taiwan from declaring formal independence, an act that could provoke military action from the PRC. Therefore, by maintaining Ambiguity, we decrease the chances of military action. This dual deterrent effect minimizes the likelihood of miscalculations on either side, maintaining the status quo and reducing the risk of a conflict.
Preservation of Alliances:
Our allies in the Indo-Pacific, including Japan, South Korea, the European Union, and the G-7 rely on the United States to act as a stabilizing force. Therefore, a shift to Strategic Clarity might embolden the PRC to accelerate its military expansion, pressure these allies, and even force the pace of unification with Taiwan. Thus, Ambiguity enables the U.S. to build consensus among partners and allies while maintaining flexibility in our responses.
Regards,
Megan Wang
Sources:
Article
Image
Word count: 275
This is a really well thought out argument, your points were well organized and you properly stated the exact reasons why strategic ambiguity is beneficial for either sides.
"This thoughtful and well-structured argument effectively outlines the benefits of maintaining strategic ambiguity. Your focus on balancing both demonstrates a keen understanding of the complexities of U.S. foreign policy in the Indo-Pacific. This was a very informative and engaging read!
-Evelyn Kim