Territorial disputes over island chains in the South China Sea, notably the Spratly Islands (南沙群島) and the Paracel Islands (西沙群島), continue to rage and tensions in the region are high. China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is flexing its muscles, facing off against other nations claiming territorial rights, such as Vietnam and the Philippines.
US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has called for the countries involved to exercise restraint and has also asked for any nation intending to claim sovereignty over the islands to back up its claims with evidence consistent with international law and avoid offering spurious, unsupported references to history as evidence.
It is evident that the US’ sentiments were directed squarely at China and its bullying manner because Beijing is the only government using the “it has always been that way” line of argument. Such an argument rests on the presumption that history can stand still and that there is no such thing as the “new order” as laid out in international law.
It is to be hoped that the US respects the human rights and freedom to choose of the Taiwanese public in its approach to the sovereignty issue of Taiwan and Penghu, and will require China to abide with international law in this, too.
The natural ecology and environment of the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands is very different from that on Taiwan and Penghu. However, what these do have in common is that the Treaty of San Francisco, also known as the Treaty of Peace with Japan, signed 60 years ago by 48 countries, states that Japan “renounces all right, title and claim” to all of them.
The Spratly Islands are uninhabited, so there are no residents to speak for themselves about the issue. When Japan renounced any territorial claim to them in the treaty, it left the field open for China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia to claim sovereignty over them.
It is a problem that has yet to be resolved.
When Japan renounced the claim to sovereignty, Taiwan and Penghu had a population that had been under Japanese colonial rule for 50 years, as well as refugees and exiles from China.
Taiwan and Penghu, unlike the Spratlys, were not just a collection of uninhabited reefs, shoals and rocks; they had a population with a voice. This voice has been suppressed for some time now, but it cannot be suppressed forever.
Through the evolution of democracy and the choices of the population, Taiwan has already become an autonomous, independent country. The nature of the Republic of China has changed almost beyond recognition, and has nothing whatsoever to do with China.
It is a new country, born only 15 years ago, and cannot be equated with the Nationalist government that was buried at the age of 38 by the People’s Republic of China that succeeded it.
The struggle for Taiwanese sovereignty is between China and Taiwan.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) accepts the version of events championed by China, the conclusion of which is clearly at odds with what the population of the country he governs wants. The US requires China support any territorial claims it has over scattered groups of uninhabited rocks and reefs with evidence consistent with international law.
Why does it shirk from requiring that China respect the proposition of the Taiwanese concerning sovereignty and proceed according to international law?
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with