Taiwan represents an enigmatic case study in the International Relations sphere, since it is an incredibly small yet wealthy territory that is unrecognized as sovereign by its neighbor China and its informal ally the United States. This unique position has made Taiwan an important focal point in both Chinese and American calculations within the East Asian region, and with recent democratization efforts underway in Hong Kong, it has become more consequential than it has been since the end of the Cold War. In this literature review, I hope to examine how Taiwan’s decision making processes have been understood in recent academic scholarship, while giving my own opinion regarding things I think the authors failed to articulate.
To provide some context, Taiwan’s political severance from the Chinese mainland occurred as a result of the 1949 Chinese Civil War, which vaulted Mao Zedong’s Communist Party into control. As a result of the war, the Manchurian forces under Chiang Kai-shek were exiled to the island of Taiwan. Despite having a limited population and an uncompromising island geography, Taiwan’s economic and political development became of central importance to American containment theory strategists during the Cold War due to the notion that this served as evidence of a Chinese willingness to establish democracy in the mainland. Because of America’s infatuation, the tiny nation was free to spend its capital in sectors other than defense. In exchange, Taiwan ensured its commitment to eventual democratization and maintains a multi-faceted strategic value. The status quo ensures its place under the ‘nuclear umbrella’ of American defensive systems and in the good graces of foreign investment magnates who could supply the nation with loans used to finance infrastructural development.
For the United States, the focus of Taiwanese interaction is not just an economic or political pursuit. In fact, military support for Taiwan “is an important indicator of its capacity and willingness to honor other commitments around the world.” If one understands the responsibility that the role of hegemonic regional power creates for the United States, they would recognize the importance of policy implementation to actually reaffirm the national status and the bilateral relationship. Thus far, the specific provisions of American policy toward Taiwan have not fully enumerated any declarative alliance or recognition of the nation’s sovereignty despite American defensive aid and increasingly substantial economic interdependence. In fact, Taiwan was not even mentioned in the Indo-Pacific ‘rebalancing’ efforts undertaken by the Obama administration, since it is not recognized by the US government. However, the Trump administration has publicly considered the ‘one China’ policy up for negotiation and the current Taiwanese leader Tsai Ing-wen was the first leader since 1979 to speak directly with a President of the United States after Trump’s election. I believe that the democratic linkage between Taiwan and the United States will play an important role in negotiations between the world’s two largest economies.
There have been various political science methodologies used to understand the decision making processes undertaken by Taiwan in their relationship with the United States. A game theoretical analysis maintains that from 2008-2016, the leading KMT party more willingly cooperated with both China and the United States by adopting a dovish stance toward China with the “three links” policy of infrastructural interconnection between the mainland and its ‘renegade province’. This initiative occurred as Taiwan simultaneously hedged their position by articulating the “three no’s” (no unification, no independence, and no use of force) which are preferable policy positions to the United States.
Through diametrically opposing actions, Taiwan undertook a ‘mixed strategy’ of siding with the conflicting interests of both China and the United States to mask their true intentions and ensure that the status quo remained tenable. This ceased to be the case with the election of Tsai Ing-wen, as a tremendous threat to the regional order exists due to the fractured relationship between fellow American allies Taiwan and Japan. This splinter has enabled China to use militaristic pressure via organized drills to claim sovereignty over the trilaterally disputed Senkaku Islands. It appears as though with the emergence of the issue of Hong Kong as a major pressure point for the Chinese Communist Party’s domestic legitimacy, there exists a potential international contest that could allow China to flex their enhanced military capabilities and reassert their position in regional affairs.
While I appreciate the game theoretical overview that Taiwan has tried to cozy up to China in many ways in recent years, I believe that the critically important construct of historical relationships between the two parties make it nearly impossible for a complete faithless betrayal of the American-Taiwanese alliance. Although an institutionalist like Rigger would contend that Chinese behavior toward Taiwan serves as an “important indicator of how it will perform its role as a lead actor on the world stage”, his hope that the international community would meet bad behavior with a rushing outcry greatly exaggerates the bravery of the political elite. If current events shape any understanding of the world, the deafening silence from the international community regarding Chinese suppression of religious and political dissidents affirms my belief that no constraint on Chinese misdeeds will be produced from institutional apparatuses.
Overall, I think that the two varied viewpoints on Taiwan offer a paradigmatic understanding of Taiwan and the actions taken by the Ing-wen administration. Although the regional status quo has arguably become less stable, I believe that the increasingly bipolar security situation in East Asia will temper any political turmoil and preserve a situation where trade routes remain unhindered and sovereignty is preserved in both Taiwan and mainland China. Maybe I am just an optimist.
American Political Theorist 