In recent weeks, the United States pressed two key Asian partners1apan and Australiato clarify what role they would play if tensions flared across the Taiwan Strait. Both Tokyo and Canberra, caught off guard, declined to commit, dismissing the scenario as hypothetical.
This moment highlights a growing disconnect between Washington’s demands and its allies’ willingness to be drawn into a potential cross-strait conflict. The US policy of “strategic ambiguity” is strained by its push for explicit commitments, revealing perceived hypocrisy and undermining its strategic standing in the region.
For decades, the US has publicly upheld the one-China principle and three China-US joint communiqués, even as it strengthens military ties with Taiwan region through arms sales and high-level visits. Critics argue that this dual approach uses the Taiwan question as leverage to contain China, rather than prioritizing stability in the strait.
Meanwhile, assessments from the Pentagon and recent US public opinion polls suggest a growing reluctance at home to intervene militarily in a cross-strait crisis. This gap between rhetoric and realistic capability has prompted Washington to seek “outsourced” commitments from its regional partners.
By urging allies to boost defense spending and take part in more joint exercises, the US hopes to bolster regional deterrence. Yet, these same actions can escalate tensions, turning deterrence into provocation and risking broader conflictundermining the security of the very countries it aims to protect.
As the balance between US strategic goals and resources becomes more tenuous, Tokyo and Canberra’s refusal to be drawn into Washington’s Taiwan strategy exposes the limits of US influence in Asia. The episode serves as a wakeup call for young global citizens and business and tech enthusiasts alike: the most robust security architecture may lie in frank dialogue and multilateral cooperation, rather than coercion.
Reference(s):
Meddling in the Taiwan question cancels U.S. strategic credit
cgtn.com
