Recently, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration has been trying to make its case for sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台) in Washington. They sent former representative Stephen Chen (陳錫蕃), who spoke at a seminar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Wednesday. He did not do a very good job.
Chen spun a long and confusing tale, arguing that on the basis of historical records the islands — known as the Senkakus in Japan — were an “inherent part of ROC [Republic of China] territory,” as they had always been a subsidiary of Taiwan. He even argued that on the basis of the Cairo and Potsdam declarations, the islands “should have been returned to the ROC.” Of course, neither the Cairo nor Potsdam declarations make any mention of the islands.
Chen also stated that in 1971 and 1972, the US “made a mistake” in turning the Diaoyutais over to Japan as part of the agreement retroceding the island of Okinawa. The interesting thing is of course, that until 1971, Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) ROC did not claim ownership of the islands when they were administered by the US as part of its trusteeship of the Ryukyu Islands.
A recent study by Academia Sinica even shows that Chiang’s government specifically excluded the Diaoyutais from its territory, as the islands were not shown as part of ROC territory on official government maps until 1971.
Chen’s misstatements prompted the normally pro-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Alan Romberg to distance himself from the Ma government. Romberg stated that allowing 75 fishing boats to sail to the islands and protecting them with coast guard vessels had not helped the case for the Ma government in Washington. He said that the timing of Ma’s “East China Sea peace proposal” was not well received in Washington, adding that the proposal had stirred up passions that put it into the “unhelpful category.”
So, what would be a good way forward for Taiwan in this muddled situation? A number of pointers were given by a third speaker at the seminar, former US deputy assistant secretary of state Randall Schriver. He said that while Taiwan is the smallest of the three claimants, and does not have an internal consensus on the issue, it does have a clear bottom line: its fishing rights.
Schriver emphasized that Taiwan finds itself squeezed between its most important economic partner, China, and its most important security partners, Japan and the US. He implied that it would be wise for Taiwan to attach more importance to its ties with its security partners, and said that while the US had not formally taken a position on the sovereignty of the Diaoyutais, it had strongly emphasized that they fall under the terms of the Japan-US Security Treaty.
Schriver also stated that if the sovereignty case were to be taken to an international forum for settlement, then Japan would have a good chance of winning, as its claims were strong.
Still, he felt that Taiwan could play a role in the peaceful settlement of the issue, if it played its cards right, implying that this would mean coming to an amicable agreement with Japan on the fisheries issue, but not playing up sovereignty claims, where Taiwan’s cards are weaker.
Mei-chin Chen is a Washington-based commentator.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US