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
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS