Some foreign policy experts argue that strategic ambiguity will signal that an invasion will be met by a weak response, thus bolstering China’s resolve to attack. Strategic clarity in the form of a pledge to defend Taiwan would intimidate Xi Jinping, deter his re-unification ambitions, and send a strong message of support to allies in the region. Other analysts say that a security guarantee by the US could force Xi’s hand and lead to a military conflict that would have otherwise remained hypothetical. The US should focus on deterring China from attacking Taiwan without resorting to military commitments that could spiral into a long, protracted and devastating war with a rising superpower.

Arguing for the motion is David Sacks. He’s a Research Fellow at Council on Foreign Relations, where he specializes in U.S.-China relations.

Arguing against the motion is Michael Mazarr, a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation. He previously served as a special assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

 “We have to reckon with a much more assertive, aggressive China under Xi Jinping… our policy of strategic ambiguity will not serve us well in the coming decades”

-DAVID SACKS

“This would be an incredibly destructive war. There’s a roster of steps other than public clarity that would be the best way to keep this conflict from falling into that disaster.”

-MICHAEL MAZARR