In the recent dispute between China and Japan over a collision between a Chinese fishing boat and a Japanese vessel off the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台), Japan did the US a favor by covering up its lack of political resolve. However, if we think in more positive terms, the way in which Japan started out strong but eventually caved in to China had some merit because it helped reveal China’s hegemonic nature.
China’s behavior proves that the lives of people in China are worthless to their government — when they exercise their “constitutional rights” they are thrown in jail. Overseas, however, and especially in Japan, the lives of Chinese people do mean something to Beijing, which goes out of its way to protect its citizens, completely disregarding whether they are in the wrong.
China has proven to be a “nouveau riche” country that relies on its modern weapons with the righteousness of those who took part in the Boxer Rebellion in late imperial China. It will break any agreement, exchange or dialogue and interfere politically in economic activities in pursuit of its own ends. China can be neither trusted nor relied upon.
The Sino-Japanese dispute also reveals the indecisiveness, hypocrisy and incompetence of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his government. Ma, the “heroic protector” of the Diaoyutais, tries to paint himself as a “peacemaker” in order to cover up his surrender to China. He claims that the Republic of China’s (ROC) sovereignty encompasses China, yet we have not seen anyone stick an ROC national flag in Chinese ground to demonstrate this sovereignty.
When it comes to the Diaoyutais, however, Ma forgets his role as a “peacemaker” by sending patrol boats to protect activists trying to provoke Japan and declaring ROC sovereignty over the Diaoyutais.
Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) demonstrated his ignorance when he avoided diplomatic language such as “hoping for a peaceful resolution of the issue,” preferring instead to indirectly threaten Japan by saying that “Taiwan will not easily go to war with Japan,” as if Taiwan were a superpower instead of a nation that is only able to handle such issues through diplomatic means.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also used misleading information as it tried to “correct” foreign reports on what the US and Japanese foreign ministers had said at their meeting on Sept. 23. The ministry said US Department of State spokesman Philip Crowley, in a press briefing about the meeting, reiterated that “We don’t take a position on the sovereignty of the Senkakus [Diaoyutais].” This was in fact Crowley’s response to a question, not a statement made by US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at the meeting.
Crowley’s explanation of the talks mentioned that both sides stressed the importance of the US-Japan Alliance. He also said Japan’s foreign minister “indicated that Japan was working this in accordance with both its legal process and international law. The secretary’s response was simply to encourage dialogue and hope that the issue can be resolved soon since relations between Japan and China are vitally important to regional stability.”
The ministry dares not face the fact that the US-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security has always included the Ryukyu Islands, in which the Diaoyutais could be included, both during the period of US trusteeship and after they were returned to Japan by the US.
Instead, the ministry chose to dishonestly stress that the US does not take a position on the sovereignty of the Diaoyutais.
The ministry, fooling no one, is only embarrassing itself.
James Wang is a media commentator.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS