[Wang Son-taek] The power of strategic ambiguity

Korea Herald

13-08-2025

In diplomacy, sometimes saying less achieves more. The most effective message to an adversary may be the one they can't quite pin down. Of course, diplomatic clarity is often praised as a virtue. Allies want to know exactly where you stand; adversaries should have no doubt about your resolve. Yet history shows that, in certain circumstances, clarity can be dangerous. The wiser course is sometimes to leave room for interpretation — to embrace what strategists call strategic ambiguity.
Strategic ambiguity is the calculated use of uncertainty in diplomacy — keeping a nation's position deliberately unclear so that multiple audiences can interpret it differently. Properly applied, it deters adversaries by making them uncertain about the consequences of their actions, reassures allies by keeping options open, and preserves flexibility for future shifts in the geopolitical environment. It is not hesitation. It is not indecision. It is calculated uncertainty — a shield and a bargaining chip at the same time.
One of the most cited modern examples is Henry Kissinger's handling of the Taiwan issue during the US-China rapprochement in the early 1970s. At the time, Beijing insisted on the 'One China' principle — that there is only one China and Taiwan is part of it. Washington, seeking to normalize relations with Beijing without abandoning Taiwan, walked a linguistic and diplomatic tightrope. The US 'acknowledged' China's position but did not 'recognize' Taiwan as part of China. This choice of words allowed Beijing to claim its principle had been respected, while enabling Taipei to maintain its de facto autonomy under US protection. Equally deliberate was Washington's refusal to state clearly whether it would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack. The result was a framework that, for decades, deterred Beijing from invading and discouraged Taipei from declaring independence — all while keeping the US engaged as a central player in East Asian security. Strategic ambiguity here was not a sign of weakness. It was a masterstroke in balancing deterrence and diplomacy, preventing either side from forcing a showdown that could have drawn the United States into war.
Centuries before Kissinger's wordplay, Korean strategists faced their own version of geopolitical dilemma. In the late 10th and the 11th centuries, the Song Dynasty of China was the center of East Asia, radiating influence through trade, scholarship and Confucian governance. But the Khitan-led Liao Dynasty to the north had emerged as the region's foremost military power after defeating the Song in war. Caught between these two giants, Goryeo adopted a dual-track policy. Formally, it acknowledged Liao as the leader in the hierarchical order, sending tribute missions. In practice, however, it maintained active trade, cultural exchange and diplomatic contact with Song. This arrangement allowed Goryeo to benefit economically and intellectually from the Song world while avoiding direct military confrontation with Liao. To outsiders, Liao could cite Goryeo's tribute missions as proof of its dominance. From the Song perspective, Korea was still part of a broader East Asian cultural sphere that resisted Khitan hegemony. Both powers, in effect, saw what they wanted to see.
By employing what could be called a tribute system, Goryeo retained full control over its internal governance, taxation and military. The appearance of deference was a diplomatic shield, buying space for independent action. This approach enabled Goryeo to act as a diplomatic center — weighing competing pressures from Liao and Song, arbitrating its own path, and extracting concessions from both sides. Far from being a pawn, Goryeo was playing the board. This was strategic ambiguity long before the term was coined — and it worked.
The United States today is reviewing an element of strategic ambiguity over the mission of US Forces Korea. Officially, the purpose of USFK under the 1953 Mutual Defense Treaty is to help maintain 'peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the Pacific area.' This wording is intentionally broad: it clearly covers deterrence against North Korea but leaves open the question of USFK's role in wider regional contingencies.
Some in Washington now argue that this mission should be explicitly expanded to include countering China. This might seem like an honest recognition of geopolitical reality: China is, after all, the United States' primary strategic competitor, and its military influence in Northeast Asia is growing. But from a strategic ambiguity perspective, such clarity would be a mistake.
Naming China as an explicit target would have several predictable effects — none of them good. First, it would invite direct confrontation, accelerating Chinese military preparations in the West Sea and along its northeastern frontier. It would sharply raise the cost of strengthening the posture of USFK. Second, it would almost certainly provoke economic retaliation against South Korea, as seen during the 2016-17 THAAD missile defense dispute. Third, it would erode Seoul's room to maneuver between its only military ally and its neighboring giant, undermining the political consensus that sustains the alliance.
Ambiguity, by contrast, forces China to factor USFK into its strategic calculations without pushing it into an openly adversarial posture. Beijing cannot be certain whether, or under what circumstances, USFK would be involved in a Taiwan Strait or South China Sea contingency — and that uncertainty can be more effective as a deterrent than an explicit threat.
For South Korea and the US, the challenge is to remember that strategic ambiguity is a form of strength. It requires discipline, restraint and the political will to endure criticism from those who prefer black-and-white answers. But the payoff is a wider range of policy options that can provide multiple diplomatic openings for leaders to claim success. The temptation to name China as an explicit focus of USFK's mission is understandable. But it is shortsighted and self-defeating. Once that step is taken, it cannot be easily reversed, and the strategic flexibility that has served the alliance for decades will be gone. In diplomacy, as in chess, sometimes the strongest move is the one your opponent cannot see coming.