What is the concept of "strategic ambiguity" that governs Washington's policy toward Taiwan?

The Chinese political and military response to the visit of US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan shows that the crisis in relations between the two powers may be deep and far-reaching.

After what seemed to be keen from the White House that its reactions were relatively moderate in confronting the Chinese position since Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, the US presidency condemned Beijing's "irresponsible" behavior and its display of force in the vicinity of the island.

America has sought not to cause a further deterioration in relations between the two countries, which are already very tense, as National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said, "We do not want a crisis, we do not seek to provoke a crisis" with China.

Kirby called on Beijing to reduce tension in the region by halting its military exercises, at a time when the United States stressed that Pelosi's visit to Taiwan does not reflect any change in the "one China" policy pursued by the United States.

"strategic confusion"

Pelosi's visit caused China to suspend - on Friday - any cooperation with the United States on the issue of climate change, and began massive military exercises in the vicinity of Taiwan.

Pelosi's visit to Taiwan angered Beijing, highlighting the concept of "strategic confusion" that has governed US policy toward the island for decades and is based on deliberate ambiguity.

The White House seemed embarrassed and sought by all means to dissuade Pelosi from making this visit, which faced many criticisms in the United States, but without asking her to abandon it so as not to appear as if he succumbed to pressure from Beijing.

two fronts

Analysts point out that the "timing" of the visit is inappropriate in light of the current tension in the world, and warn of a dangerous escalation at a time when the United States and its Western allies are engaged in an indirect conflict with Moscow since the Russian war on Ukraine on February 24.

"I don't think we're heading toward armed conflict, but the US-China relationship is at a very difficult stage right now," said Bonnie Glazer of the German Marshall Fund Center for Research in Washington.

The researcher specializing in Chinese affairs pointed to the suspension of cooperation agreements essential for stability in the region, such as the military-nautical cooperation agreement aimed specifically at preventing an escalation.

Glazer said the United States had undoubtedly "misjudged" the anger of Chinese public opinion, and the reaction of Chinese President Xi Jinping as the Communist Party Congress approaches this fall, which is expected to give him a third term as general secretary.

Expert Robert Sutter, a professor at George Washington University, believes that "the consequences of missile launches and other provocative military actions will appear in the coming days and possibly weeks along with other Chinese actions."

"The extent of Chinese retaliatory measures aimed at showing disapproval of Pelosi's visit may not be known for some time," he said.

Journalist Thomas Friedman argued that the United States risked "being dragged into indirect conflicts with the two nuclear powers, Russia and China."

“It is the basic principle of any lesson in geopolitics: not to open two fronts at the same time with the other two superpowers,” he wrote ahead of Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in a column in the New York Times.

But other experts were less concerned;

They emphasized that the Chinese authorities did not want war.

"It is clear that we have entered a long period of tension," said Timothy Heath of the Rand Corporation.

But he added, "I don't see any indication that Chinese leaders or the (ruling) Party apparatus are preparing the people for an open war only with the aim of reclaiming Taiwan. Xi Jinping does not really want war with us."