Editing Policy of deliberate ambiguity (section)

== Examples of geopolitical ambiguity ==

=== China ===
Currently, two governments claim [[Legitimacy (political)|legitimate rule]] and [[sovereignty]] over all of China, which they claim includes [[mainland China]], [[Hong Kong]], [[Macau]] and [[Taiwan]], as well as some other islands. The [[History of the People's Republic of China|People's Republic of China]] (PRC) rules mainland China under a one-party system and Hong Kong and Macau as [[Special administrative regions of the People's Republic of China|special administrative regions]], while the [[History of the Republic of China|Republic of China]] (ROC) governs the [[Geography of Taiwan|Island of Taiwan]] as well as the [[Kinmen|Kinmen Islands]], the [[Penghu|Pescadores Islands]] and the [[Matsu Islands]], which the ROC collectively refers to as the "[[Free area of the Republic of China]]".  For further background, see [[Two Chinas]], [[One-China policy]] and [[Cross-Strait relations]].

Owing to the controversial [[political status of Taiwan]] and the [[China|People's Republic of China]]'s [[One-China policy]], foreign governments have felt a need to be ambiguous regarding Taiwan. The PRC pressures states to recognize it as the sole legitimate representative of China, with which most states comply. In practice, however, most states maintain different levels of ambiguity on their attitudes to the Taiwan issue: see [[Foreign relations of China|Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China]] and [[Foreign relations of Taiwan|Foreign relations of the Republic of China]].

Starting with the 1979 [[Nagoya Resolution]] and the following 1981 agreement with the [[International Olympic Committee]], those from Taiwan who attend the [[Olympic Games]] and other various international organizations and events participate under the deliberately ambiguous name of "[[Chinese Taipei]]".<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Chan|first1=Gerald|year=1985|title=The "Two-Chinas" Problem and the Olympic Formula|journal=Pacific Affairs|volume=58|issue=3|pages=473–490|doi=10.2307/2759241|jstor=2759241 }}</ref>

=== India ===
India's Draft Nuclear Doctrine of 2003 affirms its policies of "No First Use" and "Credible Minimum Deterrence", limiting its nuclear weapons posture. In spite of that, senior officials have implied that the country may have expanded their posture to include first-strike capabilities. It is not clear whether this is an instance of deliberate ambiguity.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sultan |first=Adil |date=August 2018 |title=India's Nuclear Doctrine: A Case of Strategic Dissonance or Deliberate Ambiguity |journal=IPRI Journal |volume=VIII |issue=2 |pages=26–52 |doi=10.31945/iprij.180202 |issn=1684-9787 |s2cid=150024560 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

=== Israel ===
Israel is deliberately ambiguous as to whether or not [[nuclear weapons and Israel|it possesses nuclear weapons]], which its commentators term "nuclear ambiguity" or "nuclear opacity".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/books/14book.html?ref=bookreviews|title=Vague, Opaque and Ambiguous — Israel's Hush-Hush Nuclear Policy|last=Bronner|first=Ethan|date=October 13, 2010|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=March 6, 2012}}</ref> It is a general consensus that Israel is in possession of nuclear weapons.<ref name="FAS">{{cite web|url=https://fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/|title=Nuclear weapons – Israel|publisher=Federation of American Scientists|access-date=July 1, 2007}}</ref>

Israel has also practiced deliberate ambiguity over the issue of [[targeted killing]]s and [[Airstrikes on hospitals in Yemen|airstrikes]]. Prior to 2017, Israel generally neither confirmed nor denied whether Israel was involved in the deaths of suspected terrorists on foreign soil.{{Reference needed|date=May 2024}} 

However, with the onset of the [[Syrian Civil War]] (and [[Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War|Israel's involvement]] against Iran and Hezbollah), exceptions to its policy became more prominent. Israel actively acknowledged that its intervention in the war has been limited to missile strikes,<ref name="https">{{Cite web|url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-official-confirms-attack-in-syria-first-strike-on-live-iranian-targets/|title=IDF official said to confirm attack in Syria: 'First strike on Iranian targets'|first=T. O. I.|last=staff|website=www.timesofisrael.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-blamed-airstrike-syria-after-suspected-ghouta-chemical-weapon-attack-n863821|title=U.S. officials confirm Israel launched pre-dawn airstrike on Syria|website=NBC News|date=9 April 2018 }}</ref> which until 2017 were not officially acknowledged. Israel has also made rare exceptions to this policy to deny involvement in certain killings in the war.

With regard to notable targeted killings and assassination attempts, Israel has often exhibited a more nuanced approach to policies of intentional ambiguity, as demonstrated by numerous assassination attempts on [[Mohammed Deif]]. This example of 'policy opacity' demonstrates how the approach to a subject can change with time and circumstance.

=== Russia ===
In early April 2015, an editorial in the British newspaper ''[[The Times]]'', with a reference to semi-official sources within the Russian military and intelligence establishment, opined that Russia's warnings of its alleged preparedness for a nuclear response to certain non-nuclear acts on the part of NATO, were to be construed as "an attempt to create strategic uncertainty" to undermine Western concerted security policy.<ref name="TimesMenace">{{cite news|title=From Russia with Menace|url=https://www.thetimes.com/comment/register/article/from-russia-with-menace-ctz29fb08sj|access-date=2 April 2015|work=[[The Times]]|date=2 April 2015}}</ref>

=== United Kingdom ===
The [[United Kingdom]] is deliberately ambiguous about whether its [[ballistic missile submarine]]s would carry out a nuclear [[second strike|counter-attack]] in the event that the government were destroyed by a [[nuclear first strike]].  Upon taking office, the incoming [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|prime minister]] issues sealed [[letters of last resort]] to the commanders of the submarines on what action to take in such circumstances.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The UK's nuclear deterrent: what you need to know |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nuclear-deterrence-factsheet/uk-nuclear-deterrence-what-you-need-to-know |access-date=2023-10-17 |website=GOV.UK |language=en}}</ref>

=== United States ===
The United States has utilized numerous policies of strategic ambiguity in numerous geopolitical areas.{{Explain|date=March 2024}}

==== Taiwan issue ====
The United States has numerous ambiguous policies relating to its positions on Taiwan. This issue is at the cornerstone of [[Taiwan–United States relations|United States–Taiwan relations]] and a central sticking point in [[United States–China relations]]. This policy was intended to discourage both a [[Declaration of independence|unilateral declaration]] of [[Taiwan independence|independence]] by [[Republic of China|ROC]] leaders and an invasion of Taiwan by the PRC.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Bush |first=Richard |url=https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Paper-7v3.pdf |title=The United States Security Partnership with Taiwan |publisher=The Brookings Institution |year=2016 |series=Asian alliances working paper series, paper 7 |location=Washington, DC}}</ref> The United States seemingly abandoned strategic ambiguity in 2001 after then-President [[George W. Bush]] stated that he would "do whatever it takes" to defend Taiwan.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/25/bush.taiwan.03/|title=Bush vows 'whatever it takes' to defend Taiwan|date=2001-04-25|access-date=2007-02-05|publisher=CNN TV}}</ref>  He later used more ambiguous language, stating in 2003 that "The United States policy is [[One-China policy|one China]]".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.foxnews.com/story/bush-opposes-taiwan-independence|title=Bush Opposes Taiwan Independence|date=2003-12-09|work=[[Fox News]]|access-date=2016-02-18}}</ref>

Former President [[Joe Biden]] also seemingly abandoned strategic ambiguity, having said on several occasions that the United States would defend Taiwan if it was attacked. After each of these remarks, however, the White House declared that there had been no official change in policy.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Cooper |first=Zack |date=2022-09-19 |title=The Fourth Taiwan Strait Slip-Up |url=https://www.aei.org/foreign-and-defense-policy/the-fourth-taiwan-strait-slip-up/ |access-date=2023-07-25 |website=American Enterprise Institute - AEI |language=en-US}}</ref>

As an example, in October 2021, President Biden announced a commitment that the United States would defend Taiwan if attacked by the People's Republic of China.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2021-10-22|title=China vows no concessions on Taiwan after Biden comments|url=https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-china-beijing-taiwan-f4fdeb6e15097d55f5d4c06b5f8c9c29|access-date=2021-10-22|website=AP NEWS|language=en}}</ref> But then the White House quickly clarified: "The president was not announcing any change in our policy and there is no change in our policy".<ref>{{cite news|date=2021-10-22|title=Biden Said the U.S. Would Protect Taiwan. But It's Not That Clear-Cut. |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/22/us/politics/biden-taiwan-defense-china.html|last1=Sanger |first1=David E. }}</ref>

In May 2022 Biden again stated that the U.S. would intervene militarily if China invaded Taiwan, though a White House official again stated that the statement did not indicate a policy shift.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Biden: US would intervene with military to defend Taiwan |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/biden-us-intervene-military-defend-taiwan-84904398 |access-date=2022-05-24 |website=ABC News |language=en}}</ref>

==== Response to chemical or biological warfare ====
Another historic use of this policy is whether the United States would retaliate to a chemical or biological attack with nuclear weapons; specifically, during the [[Gulf War|Persian Gulf War]].  Related is the notion of a [[nuclear umbrella]].  Some commentators believe President [[Barack Obama]] broke US policy and damaged U.S. interests by failing to take sufficient action against the regime of [[Bashar al-Assad]] for its [[Ghouta chemical attack]] on civilians in the village of [[Ghouta]] near Damascus on August 21, 2013.  [[President of the United States|President]] [[Barack Obama]] had used the phrase [[Red line (phrase)|"red line"]]<ref name="The Spectator magazine 2013">{{cite web|url=http://www.spectator.co.uk/life/mind-your-language/8927441/that-red-line-were-not-supposed-to-cross-what-exactly-is-it/|title=What, exactly, is a 'red line'?|author=Wordsworth, Dot|date=8 June 2013|publisher=The Spectator magazine|access-date=30 July 2013}}</ref> in reference to the use of chemical weapons on August 20, just one day prior. Specifically, Obama said: "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.  That would change my calculus.  That would change my equation."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/06/president-obama-and-the-red-line-on-syrias-chemical-weapons/|title=Analysis {{!}} President Obama and the 'red line' on Syria's chemical weapons|last=Kessler|first=Glenn|date=2013-09-06|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2018-06-14|language=en-US|issn=0190-8286}}</ref>

==== Nuclear weapons on surface ships ====
{{Further|New Zealand nuclear-free zone|United States Navy Nuclear Propulsion}}
Since passing [[New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987|a 1987 law]], New Zealand has banned all [[nuclear power]]ed means of war, whether [[nuclear weapon]]s or [[Nuclear marine propulsion|nuclear powered propulsion]] from its sovereign territory, thereby making it a military [[nuclear-free zone]].  New Zealand has not banned civilian nuclear energy, but it is no longer used there and the public is quite opposed, thereby making it a ''de facto'' nuclear-free country.  This ban includes its {{Convert|12|nmi||abbr=in|sp=us|adj=on}} [[territorial waters]] as per the [[United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea]].{{citation needed|date=June 2022}}

Official U.S. Navy policy is "not to deploy nuclear weapons aboard surface ships, naval aircraft, attack submarines, or guided missile submarines. However, we do not discuss the presence or absence of nuclear weapons aboard specific ships, submarines, or aircraft.”<ref name="opnavinst57211f">{{Cite web|title=OPNAVINST 5721.1F, RELEASE OF INFORMATION ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND ON NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES OF U.S. FORCES|url=https://irp.fas.org/doddir/navy/opnavinst/5721_1f.pdf}}</ref>  Because the U.S. Navy refuses to confirm whether any particular ship is or is not carrying nuclear weapons, this was an effective ban on the ships' entry into New Zealand territory.  In response, the United States [[ANZUS#United States suspends obligations to New Zealand|partially suspended New Zealand from the ANZUS military alliance]].  President [[Ronald Reagan]] stated that New Zealand was "a friend, but not an ally".<ref>{{cite book|title=Nuclear Free: The New Zealand Way: Books: David Lange, Michael Gifkins|isbn=0140145192|last1=Lange|first1=David|year=1990|publisher=Penguin Books }}</ref>

==== Nuclear weapons and Israel ====
The United States also tolerates Israel's deliberate ambiguity as to whether Israel has nuclear weapons.  Israel is not a signatory to the [[Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons]].  Therefore, by not acknowledging that Israel likely has nuclear weapons, the US avoids having to sanction it for violating American anti-proliferation law.<ref name="politico20161208">{{Cite news |url=http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/1979-vela-incident-nuclear-test-israel-south-africa-214507 |title=What the U.S. Government Really Thought of Israel's Apparent 1979 Nuclear Test |last1=Cohen |first1=Abner |date=2016-12-08 |work=Politico |last2=Burr |first2=William}}</ref>

=== Historical examples ===

==== East and West Germany ====
After [[West Germany]] gave up its "[[Hallstein Doctrine]]" of ending diplomatic relations with any country recognizing [[East Germany]] (thus implicitly following a "one-Germany policy"), West Germany turned to a policy of virtually or ''[[de facto]]'' recognizing East Germany in the 1970s, despite still maintaining several policies in accordance with the fictive but ''de jure'' legal principle of there being only one Germany.

East German citizens were treated as West German citizens upon arrival in West Germany and exports to East Germany were treated as if they were domestic trade. That created a deliberately ambiguous policy that reconciled the demand by the rest of the world for West Germany to acknowledge the existence of East Germany and the desire by the vast majority of West German politicians to avoid recognizing [[History of Germany (1945–90)#The Division of Germany|German partition]] as permanent.{{citation needed|date=June 2022}}