美中臺戰略三角的新視角：穩定與崩潰

A New Perspective on Strategic Triangle among US, China and Taiwan: Stability and Collapse

羅德明（Lowell Dittmer）的戰略三角是研究美中臺關係經常被運用的理論模型，此一模型著重在三角的型態以及角色的變化上，但由於兩岸關係的特殊性質，有其限制。本文除了說明其限制之外，主要是想提出戰略三角的新視角，亦即從戰略三角的穩定與崩潰來理解兩岸當前與未來的可能發展。作者認為，美中臺戰略三角是一個在穩定中搖擺而最終趨向於崩潰的結局。所謂穩定中搖擺即是指穩定的程度與時間會受到三方角色行為的影響，而最終趨向於崩潰則是由於此一不對稱三角的本質使然。
從穩定與崩潰的視角來觀察，各方可扮演的角色有六種：：（1）促進者；（2）支持者；（3）平衡者；（4）抵制者；（5）破壞者；及（6）出走者。至於角色的選擇，則主要受到四個因素的影響：互信程度、實力差距、風險承受能力以及戰略利益比較。

Strategic triangle developed by Lowell Dittmer has been widely applied in the study of relations among US, China, and Taiwan with the focus on the roles and types of triangle. However, due to the nature of cross-strait relations, strategic triangle has its limits in understanding current and future development of cross-strait relations. This study tries to develop a new perspective on strategic triangle with the focus on the stability and collapse of the triangle. The author contends that strategic triangle among US, China and Taiwan shows the characteristic of staggering stability that tends to collapse in the long run. The degree and period of stability is affected by the roles of each party, but it tends to collapse due to its asymmetric nature with conflicting sovereignty claims.
From the perspective of stability and collapse, there are six roles for each party: facilitator, supporter, balancer, resister, breaker, and exit. Facilitator takes actions to improve relations with other parties to enhance the stability of triangle. Supporter is less active than facilitator but still supports the stability without any provocative actions. Balancer tries to placate, persuade, restrict, or threats the other two parties in order to keep the triangle from collapse. Resister takes actions against other parties to protect its interests in the triangle with its purpose to maintain the stability of triangle as it wishes. Breaker is the role who would rather make the triangle collapse in order to protect it strategic interests. Exit is the strategy when one party finds that there is no interest to stay within the triangle or weigh heavily the strategic interests outside the triangle. The choice of roles will be affected by four major factors: the degree of mutual trust, the gap of power, risk tolerance, and the comparison of strategic interest inside and outside the triangle.