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
RSS