Based upon the principles of first discovery and effective occupation of terra nullius, or land belonging to no one, the Diaoyutai (釣魚台) islands unquestionably belong to Japan. If the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) cites history and locale as proof of Taiwan’s sovereignty over the Diaoyutais, then the Taiwanese government could lose its firm footing in arguing for sovereignty over the island of Taiwan itself and of the Spratly Islands (南沙群島) in the South China Sea.
It is confounding to see that while the government of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) seems to be indifferent to safeguarding sovereignty over the island of Taiwan, it does not hesitate to threaten violence against an ally over an uninhabited island that does not belong to Taiwan in the first place.
The intense criticism of the Ma government’s Diaoyutai policy should be considered on two levels. The criticism from KMT members is earnest: They had previously, for inexplicable reasons, obeyed the KMT’s urging and participated in youth movements to “save the Diaoyutais,” believing that the islands are Chinese territory. This, combined with anti-Japanese conditioning, naturally makes their blood boil at the current controversy.
Criticism from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), however, comes from the preconditioning that China is the perceived enemy. The DPP holds friendly relations between Japan and Taiwan in higher regard and is more practical in regard to the Diaoyutai issue. Their criticism of the Ma government’s cowardly behavior was not meant to provoke a tough response from the government, but to force it to admit that its previously impractical policy on the Diaoyutai issue was a mistake.
Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) obviously does not make this distinction. Under criticism from both the pan-blue and pan-green camps, Liu rashly recalled Koh Se-kai (�?�), the Taiwanese representative to Japan. Some have also used the incident to shame Koh and force him to resign. Under fire from legislators, Liu has even declared that war would not be ruled out as a last resort.
One must realize that recognizing a past mistake and being criticized for a mistake are incentives for self-correction — not an encouragement to stubbornly stick to a policy that hurts the nation. The Ma administration should courageously admit that its previous incitement of foolish bravado to protect the Diaoyutais was a mistake — instead of turning around and challenging a major ally to war.
Taiwan and Japan have developed very good relations in the last eight years and their close cooperation on security issues has obviously been a deterrent to China. However, this strategy seems to have changed since the KMT assumed power. Pan-blue politicians have increasingly traveled to China and Taiwan’s main perceived enemy no longer seems to be China.
If so, shouldn’t the national strategy, drawn in accordance with the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the US, be adjusted? The KMT should be proactive in explaining the situation so the public can make a decision. If the KMT still values the treaty, taking a tough stance on such a minor issue as the Diaoyutais is unwise. If it does not need the treaty, then it should explain to the public its new national defense strategy.
The current confusion over Diaoyutais can only mean two things: Either the Ma government wants to change Taiwan’s national defense strategy on the sly, or Liu was caught unaware and has no stance on Asia-Pacific military strategy. Judging by the government’s recent decisions on hiking gas and electricity prices, the latter possibility seems more likely.
Li To-tzu is a doctoral student at Tsing Hua University’s Institute of Sociology.
TRANSLATED BY ANGELA HONG
On March 22, 2023, at the close of their meeting in Moscow, media microphones were allowed to record Chinese Communist Party (CCP) dictator Xi Jinping (習近平) telling Russia’s dictator Vladimir Putin, “Right now there are changes — the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years — and we are the ones driving these changes together.” Widely read as Xi’s oath to create a China-Russia-dominated world order, it can be considered a high point for the China-Russia-Iran-North Korea (CRINK) informal alliance, which also included the dictatorships of Venezuela and Cuba. China enables and assists Russia’s war against Ukraine and North Korea’s
After thousands of Taiwanese fans poured into the Tokyo Dome to cheer for Taiwan’s national team in the World Baseball Classic’s (WBC) Pool C games, an image of food and drink waste left at the stadium said to have been left by Taiwanese fans began spreading on social media. The image sparked wide debate, only later to be revealed as an artificially generated image. The image caption claimed that “Taiwanese left trash everywhere after watching the game in Tokyo Dome,” and said that one of the “three bad habits” of Taiwanese is littering. However, a reporter from a Japanese media outlet
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
The Iran war has exposed a fundamental vulnerability in the global energy system. The escalating confrontation between Iran, Israel and the US has begun to shake international energy markets, largely because Iran is disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. This narrow waterway carries roughly one-third of the world’s seaborne oil, making it one of the most strategically sensitive energy corridors in the world. Even the possibility of disruption has triggered sharp volatility in global oil prices. The duration and scope of the conflict remain uncertain, with senior US officials offering contradictory signals about how long military operations might continue.