The dispute over the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台) is not a new one. As a young man, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) made his name as part of the original Protect the Diaoyutai Movement (PDM), a foot-soldier in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) resistance against China’s efforts to secure unification with Taiwan.
The PDM now has a new manifestation, but this time China is using it as part of its efforts to promote unification. The KMT has previously sought to cover up the truth behind the Diaoyutais and this has caused misunderstandings over what the PDM is really about.
According to US diplomatic records, the original PDM was instigated by Chinese student activists in the US, who were sympathetic to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) after Japan declared sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands.
The goal of the movement was to unify China and break up relations between Taiwan, the US and Japan.
That Beijing claims sovereignty over the Diaoyutais galvanized the movement among pro-unification Chinese student activists in the US and Hong Kong. This forced the KMT to make its own claim of sovereignty if it was to survive.
At the time, the US ambassador in Taipei believed that, although Taiwan’s own PDM was not actively encouraged by the government, it was given tacit approval.
It was seen as useful to the anti-unification cause and also a convenient way of showing dissatisfaction at then-US president Richard Nixon’s detente with China.
The Republic of China’s (ROC) ambassador to the US at the time, Chow Shu-kai (周書楷), told the US that the PDM was part of China’s attempts to drive a wedge between Taiwan and the US and that if the KMT did not insist on sovereignty over the islands, there was a risk that Taiwanese intellectuals would “go over” to the PRC.
Chow submitted a memorandum regarding sovereignty of the Diaoyutais to the US, but later, in late 1971 in his new capacity as ROC foreign minister, he conceded to then-US National Security adviser Henry Kissinger that the KMT government had no intention of actually taking the islands.
He also said he hoped the Japanese government would refrain from making such information public because of the political problems this would cause at home.
The weakening of the PDM dissipated following Nixon’s visit to China, and Japan’s subsequent recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China both dealt grievous blows to the KMT.
China is behind the new PDM, too, trying to use it, as it did back in the 1970s, to further unification with Taiwan and break up the First Island Chain that the US wants as a buffer against China’s power.
Now that Ma has accepted the “one China” principle, sovereignty of the Diaoyutais has become a dispute between “China” and Japan.
People who do not know the facts of the matter get hot under the collar as soon as there is talk of violations of sovereignty or territorial disputes. They throw their support behind the Diaoyutais without understanding the subtleties of the issue.
However, since Ma’s concept of the ROC includes sovereignty over all of China, why do his supporters, and particularly Taiwanese businesspeople in China, not claim sovereignty over all of Taiwan and China?
Ma is being played by the PDM. He is nothing but a pawn. This was true in the past and it is true now. If you do not know the truth behind the Diaoyutais, there is no way you can make sense of it.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
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
RSS