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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of