在現實主義者的想像中，國際霸權就是秩序的代言人。美國作為國際公認的霸權國家之首，中共亦為東亞首霸，身處東亞並與中國大陸為鄰之臺灣，最多只能在華盛頓與北京折衝完畢後剩下的餘縫中開拓戰略空間，故現實主義者認為臺北的利益在於不忤逆牴觸霸權的意旨。但他們所忽略的是，必須先要有堅定主張臺獨的臺北當局，擺出絕對依附的姿態誘惑華盛頓在前，才有華盛頓欣然接納臺北為其牽制中共的戰略棋子在後，否則在華盛頓記憶中的臺北，仍舊主張「一個中國」，即令自己是霸權，又怎可能有介入覬覦的欲念？同理，必須先有國內政治勢力反對臺獨與美國霸權，並將他們自己的命運與中國大陸的崛起休戚與共在前，才有華盛頓懷疑臺北可以作為戰略棋子的作用在後。在美、「中」、臺三角關係當中的發動者，往往不乏來自臺北的能動意識，臺北也從來不是被動的棋子。一言以蔽之，棋子角色的內涵不是霸權所可片面決定的，其意義不斷在時空中受到不同實踐者的更動與添加。蔣經國總統的開放探親政策，迄今是最不可掌握的能動力量泉源。在現實主義筆下的戰略棋盤雖稱頭頭是道，但在決策者的實踐之中其實是一團混亂。

　　　　　Coming to cross-Taiwan Strait politics, realists are used to triangular relational analysis among Washington, Beijing and Taipei, where Taipei appears to be an equal participant. However, realist analysis never fails to indicate at the same time that in reality Taipei is never in a position strong enough to initiate something except responding to interactions between the other two parties. Realist scholarship in Taiwan is, therefore, torn between the identity of an equal partner and the self-image of a vulnerable dependent. What is lacking in the realist analysis is Taipei’s agency in practicing realism. In this paper, I argue that the socalled triangular relationship does not always constrain Taipei’s policy behavior. On the contrary, it is often Taipei’s own desire to achieve goals unrelated to Washington’s global strategy that induces Washington to constantly reappraise Taipei’s geopolitical values.