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.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS