ASEAN held its regional forum last week in Bali, Indonesia, against a background of sharply escalating territorial disputes in the South China Sea. On July 23, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was present at the forum, called on all parties to these disputes to abide by international law and “clarify their claims in the South China Sea in terms consistent with customary international law,” rather than just basing them on historical precedent. China has always stressed that its territorial claims in the South China Sea are based on historical fact.
If any country could claim sovereignty over any place based on historical precedent or fact, and if Mongolians and Manchus are counted as part of the great Chinese nation, then the big swathes of European territory once ruled over by the Mongolian empire and the parts of Siberia formerly occupied by the Manchu-ruled Qing Empire would all belong to China, so why doesn’t China claim sovereignty over those territories?
In December 1999, then--Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) and then-Russian president Boris Yeltsin signed a protocol in Beijing by which China ceded to Russia territories north of the Amur (Heilongjiang) River and south of the Stanovoy (or Outer Khingan) Range, lands east of the Ussuri River, the Tannu Urianhai region and Sakhalin (Kuye) Island. When added together, these territories are more than 40 times the size of Taiwan, so why did China not invoke historical fact to claim sovereignty over these vast tracts of land? Evidently, China’s -territorial claims are based neither on international law nor on historical fact, but vary according to the whim of its rulers.
Article 2, Paragraph B of the Treaty of San Francisco, which was signed by the member states of the Allied Powers and Japan on Sept. 8, 1951, clearly states that “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa [Taiwan] and the Pescadores [Penghu],” but the treaty does not assign sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu to any state.
The Treaty of Taipei, whose signing followed in 1952, does not give sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu to China, either. Nevertheless, China, with complete disregard for international law, has time and again declared in international forums that Taiwan is part of China, and it seeks to intimidate and oppress Taiwanese through missile deployment, diplomatic isolation and the threat of war. China’s haughty and oppressive actions remain to this day the main factor obstructing Taiwanese from establishing their own independent state.
The US should take the same stand in regard to resolving the Taiwan dispute as it does for resolving territorial disputes in the South China Sea, by asking China to produce legal evidence for its claim to sovereignty over Taiwan, rather than merely basing its claims on historical precedent or fact. If China cannot produce legal evidence to show that it has sovereignty over Taiwan, then the US should ask China to leave it alone, to no longer interfere in Taiwan’s affairs and to stop obstructing Taiwanese efforts to set up their own independent state.
Kuo Cheng-deng is chairman of the Healthy Taiwan Society.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
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