People often seek security through means which challenge the security of others. An even worse scenario is created when the pursuit of self-interest by the individual leads to a poor outcome for all.
The classical "prisoner's dilemma" is based on the idea of two accomplices to a crime being arrested and each offered their freedom in return for testifying against the other. Each party has two choices, namely cooperate with each other or confess to the authorities. Each must decide without knowing what the other will do. No matter what the other does, defection yields a higher payoff than cooperation.
When it comes to recent cross-strait dynamics, a "prisoner's dilemma" occurred when leaders of the pan-blue camp kept knocking on China's door and left President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) administration in a dire situation. All four parties in the game -- Chen, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰), People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) -- have tried to take advantage of the others' weaknesses while maximizing their own interests, regardless of the ultimate consequences for all.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has incorporated both good-cop and bad-cop tactics to downgrade Lien's visit to China. Since claiming Lien was falling into Beijing's "divide and conquer" trap, the DPP has used every possible means to denounce the KMT's actions as part of a plan to delegitimize government authority while running the risk of selling out Taiwan's national interests. After warning the opposition about the consequences of bypassing the government to reach a deal with the Beijing authorities, Chen made a goodwill gesture by inviting Lien and Soong to consult with the government before heading to China.
Lien finally made a courtesy phone call to Chen before he embarked on the trip and clearly defined the visit as "personal," stressing that he did not represent the government. To avoid being labeled a tool of Beijing's unification campaign, Soong also publicly denied the accusation that he planned to sign official agreements with the leaders of China.
The Chinese authorities under Hu's leadership, apparently trying to minimize the negative impact of the "Anti-Secession" Law, have undoubtedly earned political points by attracting pan-blue leaders to shake hands with them. It is clear that Beijing's goal is to isolate the Chen administration and sabotage the rise of Taiwan consciousness by extending its economic leverage to the Taiwanese business community and the pan-blue camp.
Since no central authority can force each party to abide by the rules of the game, solving the cross-strait prisoner's dilemma constitutes the key challenge for the Chen administration. While preventing the opposition parties from reaching a deal with China, Chen needs to skillfully manage and integrate the pan-blues' maneuvers to further Taiwan's key national interests.
The prisoner's dilemma game is simply an abstract formulation of some very common and interesting situations in which what is best for each person individually leads to mutual defection, whereas everyone would have been better off with mutual cooperation. In view of China's unpredictability and lack of democratic understanding, it is essential for Chen to set the boundaries for the pan-blue camp (the punishment for defection) and utilize public support for equal, dignified and mutually beneficial engagement with China.
Chen did a relatively good job by mobilizing public concern to minimize the possibility of Lien compromising Taiwan's sovereignty. However, the government needs more decisiveness and strong leadership to convince the pan-blue camp to place Taiwan's national interests ahead of their engagement with China.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at