1. Introduction
1.3 Description of the asymmetric connections theory
bandwagoning, greater actors will try to seem more powerful and threatening. For this reason, the level of hostility and the willingness to use force will also be higher. States also have to be careful when choosing to follow either, above listed path. Making the wrong choice may severely damage the actor and will also have a major effect on the international system. The number of available allies may also influence this decision.
It is no use balancing if there are simply no available allies. Besides, making allies also depends on the state’s system of connections and ability to make new connections and strengthen existing ones. (Walt 1987)
Three conclusions to the Cross-Strait relations can be drawn from the description above. As the connection can be labeled as either a balancing or a bandwagoning one, it is clear that equal relations between Taipei and Beijing are ruled out. The ROC is building a balancing connection, as the difference between the two parties’ economic position is great. The US’s support, which it gives to Taiwan, is another reason that the Taipei-Beijing relations are a balancing one. (Wu 2000, Yuan 20143)
Other scholars are in different point of view when the question of whether Taiwan is balancing or bandwagoning is asked. They state that Taiwan is bandwagoning with both China and the US and is not looking to balance with the prior one. (Chiang 20144) Yet other state that the connection can be labeled as both balancing and bandwagoning, with more emphasis on the previous one. (Yuan 20145) The difference between the opinions can be caused by several factors, including different point of views. Yet another explanation may be the different time and situation of Taiwan at the time this question was discussed. As mentioned above, international factors and the difference of times can also influence the decision of an actor to balance or to bandwagon. These also have an effect on the Taiwanese government’s decisions, steps and actions.
1.3 Description of the asymmetric connections theory
In the following section, Brantly Womack’s theory of asymmetric connections, the theoretical basis of this current thesis, will be described.
3: Information gathered during the interview with Yi Yuan Chiang was included in this paragraph.
4: Information gathered during the interview with Chia-Hsiung Chiang was included in this paragraph.
5: Information gathered during the interview with Yi Yuan Chiang was included in this paragraph.
‧
When determining asymmetric connections, a consistent definition can be found in China among Unequals: asymmetric relationships are connections “…in which the smaller power cannot reasonably expect to defeat the larger power in a contest of capabilities, but is substantial enough so that its resistance to the larger power can frustrate the larger’s attempt to impose its unilateral preference.” (Womack 2010, 23) There are certain asymmetric relations that have a history of hundreds of years’, which is a result of them being dynamic, constantly changing and unable to resolve by either side. (Womack 2010)
According to Womack, the first thing required to understand asymmetric politics is to differentiate between asymmetric and symmetric connections. When connections between states are concerned, symmetry is assumed, which however is not equality.
With symmetry, it is only supposed that one state has the capability to react the same way as another state acted towards it: “what A could do to B, B might likewise do to A”. (Womack 2006, 78) Countries in this situation have the ability to understand each other, as they can place themselves in the other’s “shoes”. However, not all relations are symmetric. In several of these situations an asymmetric connection can be observed, where stronger A is capable of doing things to smaller b to what b cannot react in the same way. Instead of being viewed as asymmetric, a majority of relations can be categorized as unequal. As the most common form of connection, it can be stated that the international community of states is built up of hierarchical unequal relationships, based mostly on negotiations and occasionally on force. (Womack 2003, 2006, 2010)
Another difference between symmetric and asymmetric connections is that in the latter the relationship is more important for b than for A, as b has more to gain or lose with its relations to A. As b will be more concerned about its connections to A, it may misinterpret A’s actions. Comparing symmetric with asymmetric connections, in the latter, placing themselves into the other state’s shoes may not work or may be misleading. (Womack 2003, 2006)
When A’s predominance over b is discussed, hard and soft power are both concerned. A’s power is greater, so it will attract smaller states, which is a major part of its soft power. However attractiveness doesn’t just come for size and power, A has to promote common values and goods to earn it. (Womack 2006)
A is more powerful than b, but still cannot force its will upon b. If A would try and dominate b, that would cause b to fight for its survival, and its will to fight would be
‧
stronger than A’s will to dominate. Even if A defeats b, it probably will not be able to control b’s territory, moreover defeating b would affect A’s relations to other states. In other words elimination of b is very rare. Nor is vanquishing b’s army and overthrowing its government more likely. As for the above mentioned reasons, it’s very likely that A won’t try to overpower b, but b has no chance to overwhelm A, so it can concluded that asymmetric relations are long lasting. An open conflict would harm both sides in some way, so the best solution for both states is to keep the asymmetric relationship, maximize their benefit from it as much as they can. Equilibrium is reachable in these kinds of connections and once it is reached, it is sustainable.
(Womack 2003, 2006, 2010)
However it must be stated that even a normalized asymmetric relations cannot be the same as a symmetric or even unequal connection between two states. The attention given to b by A compared to A’s general concerns is small – as it was little to gain from the relationship and doesn’t have to fear b at all -, which is the exact opposite in b’s case, which devotes lot of its attention to A - especially if A and b are neighboring countries -, despite the fact that it cannot influence A’s actions. Every area of the connection will be influenced, even trade between the two states, as the exposure of b will be bigger, being the result of capacity differences. In other words, b is more influenced by the connection, which is also visible in international events affecting both sides, as they have greater influence on b than as on A. (Womack 2006, 2010)
A’s lack of attention given to the relationship with b can also be labeled inattention.
In a lot of cases, this lack of attention is not intentional, it is merely the result of A has several other equally or more important relations and responsibilities in the international sphere. In other situations, A’s decision to avoid b and the possible problems that occur in the connection, is voluntary. However determining how much attention A should give to b is hard to answer. A state dedicates more attention to other states, which it can expect a threat from or generally who are capable of threatening it. Since b doesn’t possess this kind of power or strength, a negligible attention can be expected. It is even likely that A will not have coordinated policies directed towards b or existing policies wouldn’t going in the same direction, if there is no strong national attention. A’s government wouldn’t want to waste energy and recourses. (Womack 2006, 2010)
A will have three concerns towards b, if b is as above described – not a treat and not given a lot of attention by A. First of all, A will look into its prior history with b
‧
and b’s attitude in the past. A will be generous with b, if this past is friendly, and will most likely bully b and pressure the other state if this history is hostile in A’s view.
Another factor is b’s role in the international community. b may not be strong enough on its own to act for or against A on alliance with different states. A’s and b’s connection can also be strengthened in the international sphere, if both of them are part of and participate in the same regional and world organizations. The third factor is A’s policies towards b and their compatibility with A’s general foreign affairs policies.
(Womack 2003, 2006)
Generally about these concerns, it can be said that A’s policies are less likely to shift in either direction or change as easily as b’s policies towards A can. More specifically A’s attitude is not likely to change if it determines b as hostile. Same can be concluded is A’s view is that b is friendly towards it. Even if b’s actions could be seen as hostile, A will not react belligerently, it will merely try to push b back into its place. If events turn into a crisis, with b in its center, A will rather be blaming b’s alliances than b itself and be more concerned about the regional and global effects of the crisis. Most likely it will be called a “problem of b” or “b problem”, but A may not be concentrating on b’s actions and statements. (Womack 2006)
As in most cases A’s attitude towards b can be summarized in one word, which is inattention, b implements the politics of overattention. b is aware how important its relations to A are and also knows that the other party is stronger, which leads to its overattention. It gives this asymmetric connection more thought and attention, as it works in figuring out A’s thinking and possible future actions. As doing so, it uses up a lot of resources and energy, which leads overattention on b’s side. This is important for b because it knows how vulnerable it is and so any changes in A’s policies, either towards b or generally towards the international sphere, can have major effects on the weaker state. b must prepare for these possible changes. (Womack 2006)
A major difference in the attitudes is that A will tend to trust and build on the current atmosphere of the connection, while b will not be able to trust it completely, however friendly it may be. For this reason b will always be nervous, suspicious and calculating. As a result, b will seem colder and more distant towards A in their communication and because of its known vulnerability, b will have a constant ill-feeling. (Womack 2006)
As described above, A’s policies towards will not be very well coordinated, which is not true in the weaker state’s case. b will have clear straight forward and collected
‧
policies towards the stronger party, as a result of the greater attention its leaders given to A. Even so, b’s policies will change more frequently than A’s, which can be seen as stable. The reason behind this is the goal of b’s leaders to keep pace with any changes that A’s leadership is about to implement or has already done so. (Womack 2006)
As the weaker party in the relations, b will try to lower its exposure to A’s capabilities. There are different methods b can achieve this. One of them is through multilateral organizations and agreements. Associations like these not only allow the two sides to regularly meet, but as members, countries also have to agree to and follow the same set of regulations. Another method for b is to join with other small or smaller states of the region with similar interests. Here b can express its possible concerns, while not threatening A. A possible, third method is the boldest one: here b allies with another stronger power C, which can be either a closer or a more distant connection.
However, it has to be pointed out that most likely C’s relationship with A will be more important for C than its ties to b. This is a possible prediction for the future, an alliance like this would also bring instant changes: A will feel threatened and would declare the situation a crisis. A final method is b developing nuclear weapons. In this scenario, it is assumed that A already possesses nuclear weapons. This would create a certain equality between A and b, even though actually usage of nuclear weapons would be a “mutual suicide”. (Womack 2006, 84)
After looking at the possibilities of A and b in an asymmetric relationship, the expectations that each side has for the other can be discussed. A wants b to respect its power and to deal with their disagreements according to the asymmetry. In other words, in A’s point of view b should be deference. b can lack this deference if b thinks it was more power than it actually does or if it allies with other states, to counter A’s power. In both of these cases A will feel threatened by b and its actions. b expects A to acknowledge its autonomy. By doing this, A sets up boundaries for itself that it will not cross. This secures b, which would fill threatened and exposed without them.
(Womack 2006)
A sensitive relationship connects the concepts of deference and autonomy.
Deference is only an option for b if its survival isn’t threatened by A, as acceptance of autonomy is required for deference. If A is capable to threaten b and is actually doing so, b’s only options are to either surrender or attempt fighting the greater state. A’s acknowledge of the weaker state’s autonomy is only within their asymmetric connection and so it is not absolute. Expectations of deference and autonomy can also
‧
powers equal to A’s, will make A feel challenged. With each side strongly demanding what it wants and judging that the other party is not willing to bend to these demands, a conflict can easily develop between A and b. (Womack 2003, 2006)As the greater power, A can attempt to threaten b towards greater deference. This threatening can take the form of bullying, especially if A is forcing a certain behavior on b by a matter that is essential to the smaller state. These actions by A, through seen as threats, aim to remind b of the asymmetric connection to A and its place in this relation. b may feel that with these bullying actions, which can reach the stage when they resemble acts of war, exceed certain boundaries and will make b raise “the question of how far A would go to get its way” (Womack 2006, 85) Besides bullying, A’s constant changes in its attitude towards the weaker state’s autonomy will also make b uneasy. (Womack 2006)
b’s disadvantage in power results in it not having enough strength and capabilities to make the stronger state acknowledge the weaker’s autonomy, but in a way it can cause A to doubt that b is still aware of its situation in the asymmetric relationship.
The weaker state’s constant struggle to earn formal equality to A, its illusion of becoming a powerful actor and imagined hostile actions taken by A, can bother the greater country and strengthen its above described doubt. This doubt may evolve into a security threat posed either by b or b and its allies. (Womack 2006)
Misperceptions can cause a vicious circle of actions to run over and over again in an asymmetric relationship, with the possibility of an actual war as the cause of actions and reactions from the other side. Predictions, fear, misjudged actions and behavior will constantly keep this circle going around. (Womack 2006)
It can be seen from the above described that managing and maintaining an asymmetric connection for both the stronger and the weaker side can be rather difficult and at times dangerous. However a harmonious relationship benefits not just the directly participating sides, but the contemporary world order as well, which is made up of a constantly increasing number of asymmetric connections. At times, a lot has to be given up in a normalized relationship is to be achieved, with A recognizing b’s autonomy and the smaller state showing deference, as mentioned above. However deference is usually not given unless recognition is granted and vice versa. First a
‧
negative complementarities of the relationship. Despite the difficulties and the tensions, in several cases, participants of asymmetric connections were able to manage equilibrium. Furthermore, stability is more common among state in an asymmetric connection, which is owned to the common sense that they practice while handling the relationship. (Womack 2006, 2010)Management of an asymmetric bilateral connection can be separated into three categories and should start with the creation of neutralized zone – the first category -, creating neutral areas of possible conflicts, of contention. Besides this, establishing “a sleeve of normalcy” will decrease the possibility of misunderstandings and the building up of conflicts caused by misreading the other side’s actions. (Womack 2006, 89) The possibility of a conflict is reduced “by removing potentially divisive issues from immediate political attention”. (Womack 2006, 90) This can be achieved through institutionalized negotiations and through “cooling down” hot issues that could lead to disagreement and possibly a conflict. (Womack 2006, 2010)
The second category is multilateral buffering of bilateral asymmetries, through which the tension between the parties can be reduced, by neutralizing the issue or by involving a broader framework for it. As the two side’s tension is framed into a multilateral structure, A is content to see b being built into the framework of the international community and b’s pretention for its boundaries and separate identity are met as well. Besides, all of this is being dealt with in through a wide range of discourses and through institutions. (Womack 2010)
The third category of managing asymmetric conflicts discusses the new circumstances and issues that arise and alter the surrounding of the relations, and so cause frictions and tensions. In today’s post-Cold War era many of these new situations present themselves. In this age, a lot of connections between different states can be viewed as asymmetric relationships. One way to avoid the escalation of this problem is if both of the sides acknowledge that the relationship’s foundations are solid, so the changes will not have a major affect on them. This can be reached through rituals, mostly diplomatic rituals. These meetings are not only considered as
‧
meeting of heads of the states, but also symbolize the respect that the opposite sides have for each other and symbolize the importance of the relationship. Through important for both parties, as they reduce the possibility of conflicts, the ritual of meeting is especially relevant for weaker b as with these meeting A acknowledges b’s autonomy. (Womack 2006, 2010)
Another important aspect that is often needed for the asymmetric connection to be harmonious is the guarantees and reassurance that both sides require from the other party. China’s and Vietnam’s relationship is an example, built on such guarantees.
(Womack 2006, 2010)
If a harmonious connection is to be reached, both of the sides have to agree that their relationship and the common interests involved in it, are more important than the differences that the parties have, the different interests. (Womack 2010)
This normalcy can be reassured by two ways. One of them is through constant diplomatic connections, later rituals that are formed in the connection of the two sides.
This way, A and b both can let the other side know that this connection as an important one and both side can emphasis the importance of common interest. A ritual like this can be an example of the above mentioned a sleeve of normalcy, an outer sleeve. If this sleeve, the ritual, is strong, it can keep the tensions from escalading and this way may even stop the development of a possible conflict. Regular visits of leaders and connections of the lower levels of politics all are part of and contribute to
This way, A and b both can let the other side know that this connection as an important one and both side can emphasis the importance of common interest. A ritual like this can be an example of the above mentioned a sleeve of normalcy, an outer sleeve. If this sleeve, the ritual, is strong, it can keep the tensions from escalading and this way may even stop the development of a possible conflict. Regular visits of leaders and connections of the lower levels of politics all are part of and contribute to