Abstract: This paper argues that recognition of Taiwan's status quo and security resulting from the guarantee of triangular relations with the United States and China should not eliminate the impact of local, societal, and political factors on the respective power positions of the players involved or their embroilment in the U.S.-China-Taiwan triangle. The study explores these factors influencing the identities and interests of players with the advent of political leadership changes. We ask how policies adopted by newly elected politicians toward others in the triangle contribute to Taiwan's stability in the future.

Keywords: cross-Strait relations, triangular relations

Introduction

Today, the distinctiveness of Taiwan in the world is still shaped by the legacy of the Civil War in China in 1949, in addition to the Cold War in Asia. It is continually reaffirmed through declining international recognition for the Republic of China on Taiwan (ROC, Taiwan), amounting to only 17 states in 2018. Taiwan maintains its status quo in an atypical way, co-crafted through an intricate security mechanism of relations with profound influence from the United States (the U.S.) and the People's Republic of China (PRC, China). This phenomenon has been widely discussed within academia, regardless of the methodological assumptions in the field of international relations. It comes as no surprise that the relations between the U.S., China, and Taiwan have ultimately been captured using the well-grounded and fitting term ‘triangle.’

Various studies facilitate an understanding of the Taiwan issue by explaining triangular relations. Lowell Dittmer introduced the perspective of the ‘strategic triangle,’ operationalized as the contingency of each bilateral relation with the third power and the security dimension of that contingency. Dittmer identifies Taiwan's triangle as dependent on linkages between the U.S., USSR, and PRC – the Great Strategic Triangle during the Cold War. After this broader strategic nexus collapsed, Taiwan's triangle became ‘autonomous’ – a mini-triangle, characterized by the “imbalance of power among the three actors.” By distinguishing between positive and negative behavior between two symmetric and asymmetric players – “strongly influenced by the power ratio (strong/weak),” Dittmer outlined the possible configurations of the triangles by bilateral amity and enmity in the triad, such as ‘Stable Marriage,’ ‘Romantic,’ and ‘Ménage a trois,’ later supplemented by a fourth configuration – the ‘Unit-Veto.’