Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: It is argued that Taipei's recent drive to assert its separate and independent status from China in the international community is primarily due to an emerging national identity in Taiwan. Utilizing recently collected survey data, this research aims to explore the dimensions of the emerging national identity on the island and its association with the islanders' policy preferences on Taiwan's future relations with the Chinese mainland.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Being one of the international hot spots, the cross-strait relation could not only influence the future of China, but the stability of East Asia and even the global system. To majority of researchers, what they pay the main attention should not be the past of the cross-strait relations, that is, why Mainland and Taiwan begin to fight each other, but how could they solve these problems in the future. From the perspective of liberalists, the so-called Democratic Peace or Peaceful Transformation maybe the key answers, which means after finishing the economic reforms China will lead to the political transformation, and the problem of cross-strait relations would be solved. Nonetheless, to the realists, before an appropriate international regime dealing with the conflict effectively to be constructed, the cross-strait relations should be decided by power contrast between China and Taiwan. In this paper, I will review the standpoints of liberalism and realism first, and then try to analyze and realize which one would be the possible choice to resolve the deadlock of cross-strait relations.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In this paper, we will examine U.S. policy toward the Taiwan Strait under the Bush Administration. Much empirical evidence showed that the policy toward the Taiwan Strait slightly changed during Bush?s first term. After elaborating the subtle change of U.S. policy, we will attempt to interpret such change from the modified structuralism perspective. Different from neo-realist?s assumption of international anarchical status, we adopt neoliberalist?s view of international institutions existing in the international system. However, we don?t agree with the neoliberalist?s assumption that states seek their absolute interests. Instead, we accept neorealist?s survival prerequisite for states. Therefore, we identify the world as a hierarchical system and states seek their relative gains in this system. We further set the hierarchical system into two levels, the higher one and the lower one. According to Waltz?s structural theory, we claim only strong powers can have the capability to play on the higher level, while weak states are staying on the lower level of the international system. Any great power is gaming with other great powers on higher level and with weak states on lower level. Through such interactions on two levels, the great power can get interests from both. However, if the interests from the higher level are in conflict with those from the lower level, the great power, weighing its great power counterparts over the weak states, will discard the interests from the weak states. Our testing scenario centers the U.S. policy toward the Taiwan Strait under the Bush Administration. To fit this model, the U.S. and China are two powers staying on the higher level and Taiwan stays on the lower level. Previously, the U.S. were trying to get interests from both levels and keeping the ?double track? policy. However, two events change the balance among the three players: 9/11 attack and Taiwan?s independent referendum. These events lead to a conflict of the interests from China and Taiwan and the previous ?double track? policy does not work well. Thus, in order to keep interests from the higher-level partner -- China, the U.S. chooses the strategy to sacrifice its lower-level interests from Taiwan by stopping Taiwan?s willing of independence behind the referendum.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The episode of Chen Shui-bian transit diplomacy bypassing the United States and his earlier decision to put the National Unification Council and Guideline into abeyance in 2006 had put Beijing-Taipei-Washington relationship into serious tests. It remains to be seen if Taipei’s most recent steps of renaming some state-owned enterprises may escalate into tensions as before. While Chen’s New Year address and state visit to Nicaragua via US homeland in 2007 caused little problem for the State Department, the PRC’s discontent remained evident. It was against this backdrop that the paper was proposed.

This paper examined the role the US played in the institutionalization of the status quo across the Strait from a sociological new institutionalist perspective. My research questions are: In what way did the United States help institutionalize the peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait? And in the process, how did the US act through “cross-Strait peaceful co-development” institution to shape the interest or identity of Beijing and Taipei?

It was maintained that there existed an ongoing institutionalization process through which the US constructed the status quo that was supported with varying degree by Beijing and Taipei. The three joint communiqués and the TRA could be seen as setting the first stage of institutionalization through formal codification which emphasized the peaceful process in any attempt for final resolution by both sides. Since the late 1990s, the construction and reproduction of the CSPCD institution by the Americans, which generally follows a pattern of “neither use of force nor de jure independence,” has been undertaken primarily through policy statements or actions. They normally uphold such core values as “prosperity,” “stability” or “peace,” and help sustain the regulative, normative or cognitive elements of the CSPCD institution. The main purpose is to shape the policy discourses, preferences, interests or identity of Beijing and Taipei. It was also argued that although the detailed record of what the institution has achieved was certainly mixed, there appears to be an overall tendency for Beijing and Taipei not to incessantly challenge the status quo. As such, it might be concluded that the institutionalization of status quo was considerably effective, though not completely successful.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript