Policy of deliberate ambiguity

A policy of deliberate ambiguity (also known as a policy of strategic ambiguity) is the practice by a country of being intentionally ambiguous on certain aspects of its foreign policy or whether it possesses certain weapons of mass destruction. It may be useful if the country has contrary foreign and domestic policy goals or if it wants to take advantage of risk aversion to abet a deterrence strategy. Such a policy can be very risky as it may cause misinterpretation of a nation's intentions, leading to actions that contradict that nation's wishes.

Examples

Beijing and Taipei

• 1992 consensus: the governments of mainland China (headquartered in Beijing) and Taiwan (in Taipei) formed a consensus in 1992 that both sides recognize that there is one China, but remain ambiguous on the content of that concept, such as whether China here means Republic of China or People's Republic of China. See also Cross-Strait relations.
• Due to the controversial political status of Taiwan, foreign governments have long felt a need to be ambiguous regarding Taiwan. In practice, they maintain different levels of ambiguity on their attitudes to the Taiwan issue: see Foreign relations of the Republic of China and Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China.

United States

• Whether it would retaliate to a chemical or biological attack with nuclear weapons; specifically, during the Persian Gulf War.
• Whether it would defend the Republic of China in the event of an attack by the People's Republic of China. This policy was intended to discourage both a unilateral declaration of independence by ROC leaders and an invasion of Taiwan by the PRC. The United States has since been much less ambiguous after George W. Bush stated to "do whatever it takes" to defend Taiwan, but has continued to express dissatisfaction over moves towards a unilateral declaration of independence.
• Whether United States Navy ships carry nuclear weapons. This led to a New Zealand ban from its ports.

Israel

• Whether or not it possesses nuclear weapons.
• Israel practices deliberate ambiguity over the issue of targeted killings, never confirming or denying whether Israel is involved in the deaths of suspected terrorists on foreign soil.

References

Articles

Eric M. Eisenberg (2007), Strategic ambiguities: Essays on communication, organization, and identity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

See also

• Flexible response

External links

• Arms Control Association: U.S. Nuclear Policy: "Negative Security Assurances"