A Typology Analysis of US Strategic Intervention to the Taiwan Question in the US–China Competition Era

How does the US intervene in the Taiwan question? To answer this question, existing studies have formulated three schools of thought—the strategic perspective, the congressional perspective, and the agenda-setting perspective—but these perspectives still suffer from the problem of a single attribution and fail to provide a comprehensive typology of explanations. By applying high/low politics as indicators, this article categorizes the US’s strategic interventions as hybrid interventions, hard interventions, soft interventions, and maintaining the status quo . Additionally, this article argues that the US’s China policy and Taiwan’s mainland China policy are the two independent variables shaping the different types of strategic intervention. Empirical studies have demonstrated that US intervention activities related to the Taiwan question have transitioned from the status quo to hybrid interventions. The new typology breaks the traditional boundaries of tactics and may help deepen the theoretical understanding of the increasingly diversified and complicated the US’s Taiwan policy, particularly as the US–China rivalry intensifies and grows.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Asian and African Studies
Published
2024-10-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00219096241287353
Primary Topic
International Relations and Foreign Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Typology Analysis of US Strategic Intervention to the Taiwan Question in the US–China Competition Era

Xiaodi Ye
Journal of Asian and African Studies
International Relations and Foreign Policy
article

A Typology Analysis of US Strategic Intervention to the Taiwan Question in the US–China Competition Era

Xiaodi Ye
article en

Abstract

How does the US intervene in the Taiwan question? To answer this question, existing studies have formulated three schools of thought—the strategic perspective, the congressional perspective, and the agenda-setting perspective—but these perspectives still suffer from the problem of a single attribution and fail to provide a comprehensive typology of explanations. By applying high/low politics as indicators, this article categorizes the US’s strategic interventions as hybrid interventions, hard interventions, soft interventions, and maintaining the status quo . Additionally, this article argues that the US’s China policy and Taiwan’s mainland China policy are the two independent variables shaping the different types of strategic intervention. Empirical studies have demonstrated that US intervention activities related to the Taiwan question have transitioned from the status quo to hybrid interventions. The new typology breaks the traditional boundaries of tactics and may help deepen the theoretical understanding of the increasingly diversified and complicated the US’s Taiwan policy, particularly as the US–China rivalry intensifies and grows.

Journal of Asian and African StudiesVol. 61(1)
Guangdong University of Foreign Studies (CN)
National Social Science Fund of China
Openalex Percentile: Top 71%
International Relations and Foreign Policy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.