During their time in office, both the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) have found themselves at a loss as to what to do about the disputes involving the South China Sea. It will be hard for things in the area to calm down and Taiwan cannot afford to exclude itself from developments in the region. When China and the Philippines clashed over Mischief Reef in 1995, the Police Administration’s Seventh Battalion went on an inspection tour to Taiping Island (太平島), but were forced to turn back to Taiwan.
In 2002, China and ASEAN signed the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea and Taiwan’s approach to this has been inconsistent. China has cut electric cables in the territorial waters of Vietnam and has used force to protect its fishermen around the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) close to the Philippines. Although Taiwan has reiterated its sovereignty and all other maritime rights over certain islands in the South China Sea, the government has hardly taken any effective, concrete action.
Taiwan’s “U-shaped line” in the South China Sea overlaps with China’s “9-dash line,” but Taiwan claims territorial sovereignty over all the islands within this boundary. However, this claim has been questioned by the US and the other countries with territorial stakes to the area. While China was the last country to occupy the Spratly Islands, maritime law-enforcement and naval deployment in recent years there has made countries other than Taiwan feel threatened.
Regarding disputes over territory located nearby Taiwan, the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) faces a hard time in negotiating with Japan over the island chain known as the Diaoyutais (釣魚台) and there is little chance of cooperation with China on that issue as well.
When it comes to the South China Sea dispute, however, there is more room for cooperation with China.
The DPP chose to pursue a strategy of non-cooperation with China in the South China Sea and opposed it and other ASEAN nations occupying islands to which Taiwan claimed sovereignty. The DPP also did not cooperate with ASEAN nations to resist China’s claims.
The Ma government and China share the burden of protecting their claims to sovereignty in the region, but they also need to think about the concerns of the US and ASEAN nations as well.
Taiwan must develop a strategy to deal with the South China Sea issue and this requires readying for war.
Taiwan lacks oil resources and both the DPP and the KMT governments agreed that CPC Corp, Taiwan (CPC) should cooperate with China National Offshore Oil Corp to develop oil and gas ventures in the northern waters of the South China Sea near the Dongsha Islands (東沙群島). The opening of China’s deep-sea drilling platform in the South China Sea offers a new opportunity for CPC to develop cross-strait energy cooperation.
There is no way that cross-strait relations can always be peaceful. In the Dongsha Islands, China is Taiwan’s imaginary enemy while on Taiping Island it is Vietnam which is the adversary. Taiwan has to do what it can to strengthen its ability to defend both Taiping Island and the Dongsha Islands.
We cannot afford to make our coast guards feel that the government is putting them in a dangerous situation. Once Taiwan adopts a professional military system, there will be more conscripts to maintain guard in the disputed Spratly Islands. The best solution is to develop a defense deployment strategy largely based on Taiwan’s national army, with the coast guard operating as backup.
Lin Cheng-yi is a research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of European and American Studies.
Translated by Drew Cameron
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS