The effect of the growing concept of strategic ambiguity on US foreign policy
After US President Donald Trump took over the reins of power again the beginning of this year, the concept of strategic ambiguity of American foreign policy increased, as if he was taking another curve on the usual American strategic ambiguity; Because of the conditions of the current stage, such as recent escalation in the Middle East, the position of the American administration towards it and the reasons for the American -Chinese trade war.
It may also be that political analysts and those interested in the American affairs have noticed the growth of this concept in the American foreign policy style, or they may find it difficult to analyze the American position towards thorny issues in the Middle East with the inability to predict Washington’s intentions regarding dealing with it and the nature of the American position towards it.
It is also common in such cases to resort to the principle of uncertainty as a result of the inability to explain some of the emerging political phenomena, due to a lack of information and the lack of precedents similar to these phenomena, which hinders the deduction of the experimental behavior expected towards it. As well as neglecting the nature and mechanism of political decision -making within the corridors of the White House, and the loss of the ability to understand the American mentality in an accurate way, leading to the hypothesis of uncertainty in order to avoid going into unknown future fate.
This is similar to some economists when they disappoint their expectations about economic growth rates, the impact of inflation, and the implications of raising or reducing the interest rate, and they prefer to justify this in a state of uncertainty and leaving prediction for the future. While the realistic school of political analysis in international relations does not believe in the use of this principle except in limited cases, it is not preferable to use this type of concept in the political field to not hinder the understanding of the latest political developments and reach the most correct result. It may be better to dispense with the concept of uncertainty and replace it with the form of imposing the expected possibilities and alternatives to the future of political reality.
And to reduce the lengthy refutation, it must be noted here that the term strategic ambiguity attached to the American foreign policy in the past decades and was more common about two common issues. The first issue of the Taiwan Strait and its use as a pressure card threatens China in certain cases, and among the most recent examples of this is the struggle of chips and semi -conductors between China and America in 2022 and the opening of the Taiwan Strait file again by the American administration in the meantime, it is worth noting that Taiwan produces more than 90 % of the global production volume of semiconductors, which makes it an important point of conflict in cases affected by supply chains in the sector Technical.
The second is the issue of bringing peace to the Korean Peninsula and the distresss and differences it witnessed over many years; This made political experts in the Far East describe the American policy towards it as strategic mystery, specifically in the period of US -North Korean negotiations, which witnessed the convening of two summits that brought together North Korean President Kim Jong -un with his American counterpart Donald Trump, the first was held in Singapore in March 2018, and the second was held in the Vietnamese capital Hanoi in February 2019. These two summits are any agreement that leads to the common demands to bring peace between the two Koreas. This is due to the fact that the follower of this issue has noticed since the first summit that the American administration imposed incapacitated conditions on the Kim Jong-un team and it is impossible to accept Pyongyang.
The most prominent reason behind the description of the American policy towards these two issues as strategic ambiguity is that the interest of the United States is to maintain its presence in the Pacific region through military bases and other effective tools in this region. It is absolutely inconsistent with the settlement of the conflict in the Strait of Taiwan and the permanent peace between the two Koreas.
When talking about American foreign policy in the Middle East, it is clear and visible by giving Washington a top priority to this region and making it the basic agenda of any American president during his assumption of the presidency. Whereas, in one way or another, this led to the emergence of distinct security, political and economic alliances, which deepens the partnerships of the countries of the region with Washington and makes them solid in various political circumstances and transformations.
For example, the Arab Gulf was the first external milestone for US President Donald Trump in the current presidential period, as it started with the visit of Riyadh, the capital of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia last May, and His Highness Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman met and this visit resulted in the consolidation of bilateral relations and the conclusion of a package of agreements and memoranda of understanding in wide areas; Which enhances the strategic partnership between the two parties on the one hand, and confirms the importance of Riyadh and its high position in the regional and international system on the other hand.
Finally, the urgent question about the concept of strategic ambiguity .. Is the United States of America the only country it adopts in its foreign policy, or is it a basic feature and demand for any country when implementing its external agenda? Certainly, this feature corresponds to more with those forces that have an expansion policy; It is imperative for them to stay under the cover of strategic ambiguity in order to achieve this expansion and raise its influence quickly in the international environment.
Frankly, it is not difficult for the seasoned and impressive political followers to explain and understand the fate of this ambiguity by monitoring the interactive behavior of that country on the international scene.
** **
Abdulaziz bin Alyan Al -Anezan
