Miles Yu, director of the China Center at Hudson Institute and professor at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. (©Hudson Institute)
For nearly half a century, strategic ambiguity has anchored Washington's policy toward Taiwan.
By stopping short of guaranteeing direct military intervention and avoiding perennial entrapment concerns, the United States has maintained the capability to defend the self-governing island of 24 million from a potential forcible takeover.
The arrangement suited its era — both strategically and for reasons of convenience. It enabled Washington to shift diplomatic recognition to Beijing while keeping Taiwan afloat through unofficial ties and arms sales.
But that long-standing policy is now running up against the limits of history, says Dr Miles Yu, director of the China Center at Hudson Institute. With regional tensions mounting, he argues that Japan must take the initiative in reframing this decades-old approach.
Yu elaborated on his views in an interview with JAPAN Forward.
How do you assess PM Takaichi's recent remarks on Taiwan and Beijing's pushback?
For decades, the Chinese government has sought to construct a false historical narrative that contemporary Japan is essentially the same country it was in the 1930s and 1940s.
Framing Japan as a "bad actor," Beijing has repeatedly tried to persuade the United States to align with China against containing Japan. This argument carries no credibility in Washington, of course.
What Prime Minister Takaichi did was simply speak the quiet part out loud. The Taiwan issue is not merely an internal matter for China. Its security implications reach far beyond the Strait, and nowhere more directly than Japan.
And I don't believe China overreacted. They responded as they always do — like a bully. Their core objective is to overwhelm the new Japanese leadership and send a message to others that the Taiwan issue is not to be meddled with.
What are the implications of inaction in the event of a Taiwan conflict, and would regional allies be ready to assist US forces?
Should Taiwan fall under the control of the Chinese Communist Party, Japan's southern flank would be exposed. Yonaguni Island, for instance, lies only 70 miles from Taiwan.
Taking control over the First Island Chain would also extend China's air defense identification zone into a vast region overlapping Japanese airspace. The Chinese military would then possess an ideal platform to restrict Japanese access to critical maritime trade routes through the Strait and into the Central Pacific.
China launching a conflict under its anticipated anti-access and area-denial strategy would necessitate preemptive strikes not only against Taiwan but against US assets in Japan — particularly Okinawa — and likely in South Korea.
So there is no scenario in which Japan and South Korea would refrain from joining the United States against China.
Some argue that the American resolve to aid Taiwan is weakening under the Trump administration. How do you respond?
Taiwan has recently pledged $40 billion USD in future weapons purchases, and Washington has approved additional sales. Despite talks to the contrary, the Trump administration has never halted transfers of defensive weapons to Taiwan.
Both Republicans and Democrats understand the imperative of strengthening deterrence against China. And America's strategic posture in recent years has, in fact, centered on Taiwan.
Should China attack, American forces will respond. Takaichi clearly understands this, which is why her recent statements were unsurprising in Washington.
Do you see any scenario in which President Trump might try to leverage Taiwan in his negotiations with Beijing?
It's inconceivable that President Trump would trade Taiwan to appease Beijing officials, even amid ongoing trade negotiations. Had such a scenario ever been under consideration, the Taiwan issue would have been raised repeatedly during his five years of talks with Xi Jinping. It was not.
American commitment remains unwavering. The Trump administration has cautioned China not to treat Taiwan as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations or on matters such as fentanyl, and China has complied, though reluctantly.
Trump and his team also realize that ceding Taiwan would invite further aggression. Beijing's ambitions would not stop there. The Senkaku Islands and other disputed territories in the East and South China Seas could follow.
Washington has maintained a policy of strategic ambiguity on Taiwan for decades. Is it still viable?
There is no substantive "strategic ambiguity" regarding the US military commitment. Ambiguity serves no purpose. America's resolve to defend Taiwan has never been in doubt, and no one in China's high command has ever believed otherwise.
There is a reason why Beijing's decades-long military planning has assumed US intervention and its defense buildup aimed at the US, not Taiwan.
What remains obscure is diplomatic recognition. Washington has never clearly defined the island's international status, and that ambiguity is becoming untenable.
Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, for instance, has advocated for formal diplomatic recognition for Taiwan to eliminate uncertainty. The world is moving closer to that reality. And Japan — given its proximity and stakes — should take the first step, with the US following its lead.
If you could offer Japan one security advice, what would it be?
Japan should take a page from Israel, a steadfast American ally that consistently acts strictly on its own security imperatives. Adopting a similar posture would make it far easier for Washington to advance Tokyo's broader interests.
RELATED:
- China's Act of War Against PM Takaichi and Japan
- Can Taiwan Survive if China Strikes for Real?
- Takaichi Approval Remains High at 75%, Majority Support Taiwan Remarks
Author: Kenji Yoshida
