Rational behavior and ideals are diametrically opposed concepts. In economics, rationality is normally explained as using all possible past and current information to avoid systemic mistakes from occurring. In other words, rationality is more pragmatic, while ideals normally mean elevating a goal to a level where compromise is no longer possible.
The mathematician John Nash formulated a definition of equilibrium in game theory, the Nash Equilibrium, for which he was awarded the Nobel prize in economics. This point of equilibrium describes the situation most beneficial to all parties given their assumed existing choices.
But such an equilibrium could lead to the creation of a "Priso-ner's Dilemma." Two thieves get caught for theft, and are interrogated separately. If neither con-fesses, they will only go to prison for a short period of time. But if one confesses, he will get a reduced sentence and only be imprisoned for a few days, while the other thief will be given a longer sentence. If both confess, neither will be given a reduced sentence.
The resulting equilibrium is that they will both confess. Although they know that the best solution would be for both not to confess, the problem is that if one confesses, the other would be better off also confessing.
In the current anti-arms
procurement atmosphere, two former and one incumbent university presidents have issued a statement saying they want to "alert the government to the fact that if, when two people quarrel, one constantly clenches his fist, the other party will have to do the same. In the end, one of the two will strike out. There is no longer any sense in debating who will strike first, but one of the two has to relax his clenched fist and offer a true sign of good will. That is the only way to evade danger."
Game theory says that if Tai-wan is first to relax its clenched fist, China's best choice would be to strike, because if Beijing also relaxed, the unification issue would never be resolved, which is diametrically opposed to China's goal. Thus, from a rational standpoint, if our government relaxes first, it is staking the lives of 23 million Taiwanese on its good intentions and ideals.
To turn the issue around: Taipei maintaining good military preparedness actually means that there may be a smaller risk of war.
The rational behavior of rulers always overrides the ideals they held while in opposition. Has the Democratic Progressive Party government compromised its Tai-wan independence stance since its years in opposition? The "Five Noes" and the decision that a new constitution will not affect the national title or territory are examples of rational behavior taking precedence over ideals.
So, can the cross-strait conflict be resolved? A look at the behavior of the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War suggests that it is situational misjudgements that are the main cause of war. Although the two nations never ceased enhancing their arsenals, mutual communication and negotiations also continued uninterrupted. If the two sides of the Taiwan Strait harbor good intentions, why not show it by no longer making "one China" or "Taiwan independence" a premise for negotiations?
Kung Ming-hsin is a research director at the Taiwan Institute of Economic Research.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath