The Core of the Debate Over 'Strategic Clarity'

The key disagreement between advocates of “strategic clarity” and their opponents concerns the extent of U.S. interests and whether Taiwan is important enough to the U.S. to warrant an explicit pledge

William Galston’s column on the U.S. and Taiwan tries to lay out the competing arguments over so-called “strategic clarity,” but he ends up missing the real core of the disagreement:

Many experts argue that the policy of strategic ambiguity has outlived its useful life and should be replaced with a hard guarantee to defend Taiwan from attack. Others repl…

This post is for paid subscribers