On Wednesday last week, Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman and presidential candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) said that if elected president, he would assure Taiwan, the US and China that he would not support Taiwanese independence, nor would he accept China’s unification with Taiwan by force (武力統一). He would continue to maintain a middle course in the “Taiwan-US-China equilateral triangle,” which he believes is the only feasible foreign policy Taiwan can pursue.
The international relations theory of the so-called “equilateral triangle” says that it is only by keeping an equal distance between the world’s two greatest powers without choosing a side that a smaller power such as Taiwan can gain benefits from relations with the two great powers. The theory, based on Singapore as a model, proposes that Taiwan has a chance to play a leading role by serving as a bridge or even a mediator between the US and China.
International triangular politics is like this: A, B and C. With A as the strongest country, it would likely exert pressure on the less strong country B and the least strong country C to get what it wants. Studying the behavior of states suggests that in response, the less strong country B and the least strong country C would be likely to form an alliance to balance against the stronger power A. However, if A joins forces with C to fight against B, this is usually because B is on the rise and is developing a strategic posture that might threaten countries A and C, so to protect their interests they would likely join forces to negate the threat. When the A-C relationship improves, country B would likely attempt to weaken the alliance by currying favor with A to put pressure on country C.
Applying this to the situation in the Taiwan Strait, A is the US, B is China and C is of course Taiwan. From a Taiwanese perspective, if Taiwan wants to advance its national interest, it should convince the US that Taiwan would be a cooperative partner and strive to benefit from its partnership with the US. Once China tries to improve its relations with the US, Taiwan should either convince the US that it cannot be replaced, or convince the US that being on the same side as Taiwan better serves the US interest — such as their shared values, Taiwan’s geostrategic position and its crucial place in the technology supply chain. In either case, the best solution for Taiwan is always to stand on the same side as the US. The only question that remains is how close Taiwan should get with the US.
There are two problems with Ko’s theory. First, he does not understand the weakness of Taiwan’s international status and sovereignty. Second, Taiwan is the target of China’s unification attempts, and is at the center of a geopolitical conflict, which means that it is difficult for Taiwan to play a role similar to Singapore’s and gain advantages from close relations with both the US and China. If Singapore were in the geographical position of Taiwan, it would find itself in the same geopolitical dilemma.
Whether in geography or politics, three entities in proximity to one another must be equal in size and strength to be equidistant. Ko’s statement reveals that he does not understand Taiwan’s weak international status and sovereignty. His inclusion of “unification” as an option in the disguise of the term “non-forceful unification” is an attempt to draw the “enemy state” closer to Taiwan, and to send the signal that he and the TPP are for sale on the issue.
A saying in political science goes: Sitting on the fence is a good strategy when the fence is stable enough. This is exactly the basics of politics that Ko will never be able to grasp.
Kirk Lim is a civil servant.
Translated by Eddy Chang
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS