When asked if he would disclaim Itu Aba Island (Taiping Island, 太平島) of the Spratly Islands (Nansha Islands, 南沙群島), President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) replied quite atypically, saying that such ideas were “crazy.” When it comes to territorial disputes, our countrymen are unusually brave, not to mention that Taiwan still controls Itu Aba Island. However, the question is why a huge sum of money has been spent on this tiny island more than 1,600km away from Taiwan proper.
Strategically speaking, Itu Aba Island is surrounded by shallow water and reefs. Merchant vessels basically avoid the area. Moreover, nearby islands within 10 nautical miles (18.5km) of Itu Aba Island are controlled by various other nations. Itu Aba Island is by no means in a position that allows it to control the sea lanes in the South China Sea.
From a military standpoint, can this island be used as a military base or port for warships? There is no oil or food on the island. There used to be fresh water, but after decades of over-extraction there is nothing left and water must be imported from Taiwan. All necessities, except sunlight and air, have to be supplied from outside the island.
How could Itu Aba possibly serve as a base for warships?
Furthermore, although Itu Aba Island is the largest of the naturally occurring Spratly Islands, its area covers only 45 hectares.
The terrain is flat, and there is no place to be used as a shelter; nor can any effective shelter be built on it. A military base on this island could be annihilated instantly.
During peacetime, it is workable to practice military parades and drills, raise the flag and sing the national anthem on the island, but once peace is over, all personnel on the island would be left with two choices: Surrender, or die for the country. There is no chance that they would be able to defend themselves until rescue arrives.
In terms of resources, there is not a single Taiwanese fishing boat within 800km of Itu Aba, because the distance is too far and the commercial value of the catch and revenue are not enough to cover operational costs.
Ironically, the maritime areas are the fishing grounds of Taiwan’s neighbors, such as China, the Philippines and Vietnam. Over the past decades, Itu Aba Island has been used as an aid station or shelter for fishermen from these nations. Whenever they are suffering from any form of ailment or are in need of help of any kind, they call on Itu Aba for humanitarian aid.
As for the rumored oil resources, there is no evidence that there is abundant oil on the island. If there were, war would likely ensue, and not a drop of it would be sent back to Taiwan proper.
What about Taiwan’s right to make itself heard on the global stage?
Taiwan has occupied this island for more than half a century, the longest of any nation, but whenever Itu Aba is discussed internationally, Taiwan has never been allowed to the table.
Before stepping down in 2008, then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) finished the construction of the island’s airport and visited in person, publishing the Spratly Initiative. He is the only leader of any nation to have visited the Spratly Islands in person, but so what?
Let us not forget that the Spratly Islands are comprised of hundreds of atolls and islets, and that Itu Aba is just one of them. If even one small island is already beyond reach for Taiwan, how could we have the capability to lay claim to the entire Spratly Islands chain?
Furthermore, our current Spratly Islands policy was made decades ago, in a different situation, to complement the policy to destroy the eternally wicked Chinese communists and rescue our fellow countrymen suffering in China.
Today, however, ambassadors from the eternally wicked communist China are ordering us about as if they were representatives from heaven and our suffering fellow countrymen are now supporting us all.
Do we still uphold the old doctrine that we and the Chinese communists cannot coexist and that we have an obligation to retake China?
The “Republic of China” is no longer the China that covers 960 million hectares, has a population of 1.4 billion and boasts a history of thousands of years of dominance in eastern Asia.
National strength has weakened, the political climate regarding the Spratly Islands is ambivalent and money has been squandered defending the indefensible.
Is it time to face the music and carefully make the necessary adjustments?
Chiang Huang-chih is a professor of law at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS