轉變中的美國因應臺海衝突政策

The Shifting US Policy on Taiwan Strait Conflict

近年美「中」競爭加劇提高中共侵臺的威脅性，再度引發「戰略模糊(strategic ambiguity)」與「戰略明確(strategic clarity)」爭論。「戰略模糊」是美國利用對臺海衝突立場的不確定性引發中共猜忌，因美「中」實力拉近而遭質疑，並開始支持深化臺美關係及協助臺灣自衛，喪失最初假設，導致現代「戰略模糊」與「戰略明確」之爭聚焦於美國能否在嚇阻中共同時避免「臺獨」；美國小布希總統（George W. Bush）執政時曾採「雙重明確（dual clarity）」，同時反對中共武力犯臺與「臺獨」，不保證介入因「臺獨」引發的臺海衝突，利用介入臺海衝突時機的不確定性達到「雙重嚇阻（dual deterrence）」，更符合現代「戰略模糊」內涵。因此，現代「戰略模糊」與「戰略明確」之爭，事實上是「雙重明確」與「戰略明確」之爭。

In recent years, the intensifying competition between the US and China has exacerbated the threat of China’s invasion of Taiwan. This has once again triggered the debate between “strategic ambiguity” and “strategic clarity”. Strategic ambiguity consists of the deliberate uncertainty of the US position on the Taiwan Strait conflict, which in turn arouses China’s suspicion. However, strategic ambiguity has begun to be questioned in view of China’s rising military power. This has also prompted the deepening of Taiwan-US relations and increasing assistance from the US to Taiwan in terms of self-defense. As a result, the founding assumption of strategic ambiguity has collapsed, and the modern debate between strategic ambiguity and strategic clarity therefore focuses on whether the US can avoid Taiwan’s declaration of independence while simultaneously deterring China from armed conflict. US President George W. Bush adopted the policy of “dual clarity” while he was in office, that is, the US opposed China’s military invasion of Taiwan and Taiwan’s declaration of independence at the same time. Furthermore, the US did not guarantee its intervention in a possible Taiwan Strait conflict caused by Taiwan declaring independence. The US leveraged the uncertainty of the timing of its intervention in one such conflict to achieve “dual deterrence”, which is more in line with the modern ideas associated with strategic ambiguity. Therefore, the modern debate between strategic ambiguity and strategic clarity is actually a debate between double clarity and strategic clarity.