I’m kinda curious for me at least being allied with the gulf states feels incredibly icky and makes it harder to call out human rights abuses in other countries. Iraq was also a massive mess since the fall of Saddam but as of late seems to be improving in a good direction there certainly is a lot of progress to be made in terms of societal attitudes to religious, sexual and ethnic minorities but the seemingly free elections are promising.
The whole 'China vs Taiwan and the US' thing has been done to death over the past month, both on the subreddit and elsewhere, but I have a genuine question about whether the American policy of 'strategic ambiguity' in relation to Taiwan's defence is still appropriate considering the rapidly changing strategic situation on the ground.
For those who don't know, the concept of 'strategic ambiguity', put simply, is the method by which the United States indirectly defends Taiwan's de facto independence through diplomacy. While the US continues to supply the ROC Armed Forces with arms and makes subtle hints towards it's commitment to defend Taiwan, the US has so far refused to explicitly state whether it would or would not come to Taiwan's defence if it was invaded by the PRC. The idea is to keep enough fear in the minds of China's military planners that US intervention is possible, without ever fully committing to Taiwan's defence openly, the latter of which would entail massive geopolitical ramifications and possibly the outbreak of the very war strategic ambiguity is designed to prevent.
This has been the prevailing defence policy the US has held towards Taiwan for the past 40 years, and it seems to have worked in an era where Chinese military dominance continued to lag behind the United States'. However, with the rapid emergence of the PRC has a peer, or at least near-peer, military threat to the United States, the security of Taiwan is now by no means guaranteed, hence the big hoo-ha about the Taiwanese Strait this past month.
Therefore, in this new era of potential Chinese military dominance in the Taiwanese Strait, and increasing fears that ROC's ability to defend itself is waning, is it time for the United States to abandon its policy of strategic ambiguity and instead provide strategic clarity on whether it will unilaterally come to Taiwan's aid or not? Is such a move necessary for the effective defence of Taiwan in the event of an attempted invasion, or will abandoning strategic ambiguity raise tensions excessively and further destabilise the region? How would the US militarily back up it's policy shift (if it makes one), and how will both China and America's allies react?
Thanks for your responses.
Better explanation- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_of_deliberate_ambiguity and [https://japantoday.com/category/features/opinions/what-is-the-us-policy-of-%27strategic-ambiguit
... keep reading on reddit ➡I'm starting to prep for the FSOT and I'm wondering whether there's a solid book or series of books on the history of American diplomacy and foreign relations. I know the AFSA recommends the Cambridge four-part history of American foreign relations, but the series seems a bit dated (the first volume was published in 1992). And the State Department doesn't have a specific book dealing with American foreign relations on their suggested reading list.
I'm planning to read some more general histories of the United States (Oxford seems to have a solid series on that) and probably buy a couple A.P. U.S. history books, but I'd really like to have a book more specifically geared toward American foreign relations, so any recommendations you have in that regard would be greatly appreciated. Recommendations on other books that stood out to you as particularly interesting or helpful are also welcome!
Thanks so much!
