Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T16:55:39.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prospects for Cross-Strait Political Negotiation: Exploring Win-Sets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2017

Josh Wenger  and
Ming-tong Chen
Josh Wenger
Affiliation:
National Taiwan University. Email: [email protected].
Ming-tong Chen*
Affiliation:
National Taiwan University.
*
Email: [email protected] (corresponding author).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study adopts a pre-negotiation approach based on Robert Putnam's win-set concept to examine domestic constraints on cross-Strait political negotiation. Survey research of elite opinion in both China and Taiwan and of public opinion in Taiwan is used to estimate each side's win-set (that is, the set of political negotiation outcomes that could win majority approval domestically) during Ma Ying-jeou's second presidential term in Taiwan (2012–2016). The possibility for overlap in win-sets that could provide a zone of possible agreement and the potential for coalitions in favour of negotiation are analysed. The study finds no win-set overlap and limited potential for coalitions favouring negotiation outcomes with the least distance from overlap, concluding that domestic conditions for formal political negotiations between Beijing and Taipei are unlikely to be ripe in the near term.

摘要

本研究采取「前置谈判」(pre-negotiation) 研究途径来探讨国内因素如何影响两岸开启政治谈判之可能性, 将分析焦点置於罗伯特 ‧ 帕特南 (Robert Putnam) 的「获胜集合」(win-set) 概念。作者利用针对中国大陆与台湾之两岸事务专家以及台湾民衆所作的调查, 估算马英九第二任期 (2012–1016) 内两岸各自的获胜集合, 意即能获得国内多数同意之政治协议方案的集合。文章接著分析双方的获胜集合是否重叠而得以形成「协议区」 (zone of possible agreement) 以及赞同政治谈判的潜在联盟。本研究发现该时期内两岸在胜利集合上不存在重叠之处, 形成推动政治谈判之潜在联盟的空间亦相当有限。本研究因此指出, 两岸展开政治谈判的国内条件难以在近期内臻於成熟。

Keywords

cross-Straitpre-negotiationtwo-level gamewin-setopinion surveyzone of possible agreementpolitical negotiationTaiwanChina两岸前置谈判双层赛局获胜集合调查研究协议区政治谈判台湾中国
Type
Focus on Taiwan
Information
The China Quarterly , Volume 232 , December 2017 , pp. 932 - 955
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © SOAS University of London 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chen, Qimao. 2011. “The Taiwan Straits situation since Ma came to office and conditions for cross-Straits political negotiations: a view from Shanghai.” Journal of Contemporary China 20(68), 153–160.Google Scholar
Cuhadar, Cerag Esra. 2004. “Evaluating Track-Two Diplomacy in Pre-Negotiation: A Comparative Assessment of Track-Two Initiatives on Water and Jerusalem in the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict.” PhD diss., Syracuse University.Google Scholar
Democratic Progressive Party. 2011. “Shi nian zhenggang ‘guojia anquan, liang'an jingmaopian’ meiti zuotan” (Media forum for ten-year platform's “national security, cross-Strait economics and trade” section), 23 August, http://www.dpp.org.tw/news_content.php?sn=5261. Accessed 1 September 2016.Google Scholar
Ding, Yijiang. 2012. “Cross-Strait peace agreement: diminishing likelihood.” Asian Affairs: An American Review 39(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Fisher, Ronald J. 1989. “Pre-negotiation problem-solving discussions: enhancing the potential for successful negotiation.” International Journal 44(2), 442–474.Google Scholar
Glaser, Bonnie S., and Saunders, Phillip C.. 2002. “Chinese civilian foreign policy research institutes: evolving roles and increasing influence.” The China Quarterly 171, 597–616.Google Scholar
He, Wei-kuo. 2010. “Liang'an heping xieyi kexingxing zhi yanjiu” (Research on the feasability of a cross-Strait peace agreement). MA diss., National Chengchi University.Google Scholar
Huang, Jia-shu. 2003. Liang'an tanpan yanjiu (Research on Cross-Strait Negotiation) . Beijing: Jiuzhou chubanshe.Google Scholar
International Crisis Group. 2004. “Taiwan Strait IV: how an ultimate political settlement might look.” ICG Asian Report No. 75, 26 February, https://www.ciaonet.org/attachments/4100/uploads.Google Scholar
Irwin, C.J. 2004. “Using public opinion polls to support peace processes: practical lessons from Northern Ireland, Macedonia, Cyprus, Israel and Palestine.” In Guelke, Adrian (ed.), Democracy and Ethnic Conflict: Advancing Peace in Deeply Divided Societies. New York: Palgrave, 62–73.Google Scholar
Kuo, Jui-hua. 2008. “Zhonggong dui Tai gongzuo jizhi yanjiu: zhengfu guocheng de guandian” (A study on the Taiwan affairs mechanism of the CPC: process of government perspective). PhD diss., National Chengchi University.Google Scholar
Lieberthal, Kenneth. 2005. “Preventing a war over Taiwan.” Foreign Affairs 84(2), 53–59.Google Scholar
Lin, Cho-shui. 2011. “Cong liang'an xiongdi guanxi dao liang'an xiongdi zhi bang” (From brotherly cross-Strait relations to brotherly states), Xin xinwen, 20 July.Google Scholar
Lin, Jih-wen. 2000. “Two-level games between rival regimes: domestic politics and the remaking of cross-Strait relations.” Issues and Studies 36, 1–26.Google Scholar
Mainland Affairs Council. 2011. “Chen Zongtong zhuzhang: liang'an qianshu heping hudong jiagou” (President Chen's position: Taiwan and mainland should sign peace and stability framework), 3 February, http://www.mac.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=68557&ctNode=6621&mp=1. Accessed 1 September 2016.Google Scholar
Mainland Affairs Council. 2014. “Minzhong dui tongyi, duli, huo weichi xianzhuang de kanfa (quyutu)” (Public attitudes towards unification, independence or maintaining status quo (area chart)), http://www.mac.gov.tw/public/Attachment/432510132833.gif. Accessed 1 September 2016.Google Scholar
Niou, Emerson M.S. 2005. “A new measure of preferences on the independence–unification issue in Taiwan.” Journal of Asian and African Studies 40(1–2), 91–104.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1988. “Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games.” International Organization 42(3), 427–460.Google Scholar
Pruitt, Dean G. 2014. “The evolution of readiness theory.” In Galluccio, Mauro (ed.), The Handbook of International Negotiation: Interpersonal, Intercultural, and Diplomatic Perspectives. Heidelberg: Springer, 123–138.Google Scholar
Saunders, Harold. 1985. “We need a larger theory of negotiation: the importance of pre-negotiating phases.” Negotiation Journal 1(3), 249–262.Google Scholar
Saunders, Phillip, and Kastner, Scott L.. 2009. “Bridge over troubled water? Envisioning a China–Taiwan peace agreement.” International Security 33(4), 87–114.Google Scholar
Shaw, Chong-hai. 1999. Liang'an zhengzhi tanpan de kenengxing (Potential for Cross-Strait Political Negotiation) . Hong Kong: Xianggang haixia liang'an guanxi yanjiu zhongxin.Google Scholar
Shaw, Chong-hai. 2004. Liang'an xieshang yu tanpan (Dialogues and Negotiations Across the Taiwan Strait) . Taipei County: Xin wenjing kaifa.Google Scholar
Shaw, Chong-hai. 2013a. Zhonggong dui Tai zhengce 1979–2013 (Chinese Communists’ Taiwan Policy 1979–2013) . Taipei: Tangshan chubanshe.Google Scholar
Shaw, Chong-hai. 2013b. Tansuo liang'an hepingxieyi de duoyuan jiaodu guancha (Exploring Diverse Perspectives on a Cross-Strait Peace Agreement) . Hong Kong: Zhongguo pinglun xueshu chubanshe.Google Scholar
Stein, Janice Gross (ed.). 1989. Getting to the Table: The Processes of International Prenegotiation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Taiwan Indicators Survey Research. 2013. “‘Taiwan minxin dongtai diaocha, liang'an shiwu yu xieyi’ mindiao” (Taiwan mood barometer survey, cross-Strait affairs and negotiation), 31 October, http://www.tisr.com.tw/?p=3474. Accessed 1 September 2016.Google Scholar
Taiwan Indicators Survey Research. 2015a. “‘Taiwan minxin dongtai diaocha, daxuan yu Ma Xi hui’ mindiao xinwengao” (“Taiwan mood barometer survey, Taiwan election and Ma-Xi summit” opinion survey press release), 12 November, http://www.tisr.com.tw/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/TISR_TMBS_201511_1.pdf. Accessed 1 September 2016.Google Scholar
Taiwan Indicators Survey Research. 2015b. “Minzhong zhengdang lichang qingxiang zhuizong fenxi” (Public political party identification tracking analysis), October, http://www.tisr.com.tw/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/TISR_PID_Tracking_201511.pdf.Google Scholar
Trumbore, Peter F. 1998. “Public opinion as a domestic constraint in international negotiations: two-level games in the Anglo-Irish peace process.” International Studies Quarterly 42(3), 545–565.Google Scholar
TVBS Poll Center. 2010. “Heping xieyi mindiao” (Peace agreement public opinion survey), 12 October, http://www1.tvbs.com.tw/FILE_DB/PCH/201203/0c9kfpqt5k.pdf. Accessed 1 September 2016.Google Scholar
Wu, Yu-shan. 2000. “Theorizing on relations across the Taiwan Strait: nine contending approaches.” Journal of Contemporary China 9(25), 407–428.Google Scholar
Yang, Kai-huang. 2010. “Liang'an xuezhe heping xieyi wenben zhi bijiao fenxi” (Comparative text analysis of peace agreement proposals by scholars in Taiwan and mainland China). Paper presented at “2010 Conference on Cross-Strait Security Management and Cross-Strait Relations,” Tatung University, Taipei, 10–11 December 2010.Google Scholar
Yu, Chih-wei, and Chen, Cheng-i. 2011. “Zhongguo dui Tai zhengce zhi lixing yu zuzhi guocheng: yi 2002–2010 nian de zhengce bianhua wei li” (Analysis of rational actors and the organizational process of PRC's Taiwan policy between 2002 and 2010). Zhongguo dalu yanjiu 54(4), 57–88.Google Scholar
Yu, Yuan-zhou. 2002. “Zhonghua banglian gongheguo xianfa (xuezhe jianyi ban)” (Scholar's proposed draft Constitution of the Chinese Federal Republic), 6 June 2005 (revised), http://www.doc88.com/p-931709372713.html. Accessed 1 September 2016.Google Scholar
Zartman, William. 1989. “Prenegotiation: phases and functions.” International Journal 44(2), 237–253.Google Scholar
Zartman, William. 2000. “Ripeness: the hurting stalemate and beyond.” In Stern, Paul and Druckman, Daniel (eds.), International Conflict Resolution after the Cold War. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 225–250.Google Scholar
Zhong, Hou-tao. 2014. “Meiguo duiyu liang'an zhengzhi duihua de maodun taidu ji qi jiegouxing kunjing” (America's contradictory attitude towards cross-Strait dialogue and its structural dilemma). Zhongguo pinglun 196, 42–47.Google Scholar