The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, Netherlands, on Tuesday last week announced its long-awaited ruling in a South China Sea case filed by the Philippines against China.
According to the ruling, China’s “nine-dash line” has no legal basis and Beijing’s island reclamation and fishing activities have violated the Philippines’ sovereignty. The court also said that all 47 islands and reefs that China claims in the South China Sea, including Itu Aba Island (Taiping Island, 太平島), are “rocks” that at most generate an entitlement to territorial waters that extend 12 nautical miles (22.2km), but not a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. The ruling was a great victory for the Philippines and a great defeat for China, and while it has no effect on Taiwan’s sovereignty over Itu Aba, it does affect fishing rights.
The most significant part of the ruling was the announcement that the South China Sea is international waters rather than territorial waters belonging to one nation, and that ships of all nations have right of passage.
China is the main reason that this issue has taken on such huge proportions. Beijing’s activities in the South China Sea in recent years has been a cause of great concern for all countries in the region: it has been reclaiming land, turning rocks into at least three artificial islands that are used for military airports, radar installations and ports.
This runs counter to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) promise that China would not militarize the South China Sea. In particular, the “nine-dash line” covers 90 percent of the region, and if China’s plan succeeds, that would restrict neighboring countries’ freedom of sea and air navigation and have a negative impact on regional stability and prosperity. It would even have a major impact on global trade.
According to the ruling, there is no legal basis for the “nine-dash line,” which was a reasonable decision in line with common sense. China has been consistent in its historical claims to sovereignty based on the view that a certain area has been Chinese territory since ancient times.
This does not only apply to the South China Sea, it is taking the same approach with its claims to Taiwan. If this reasoning were to be drawn to its logical conclusion, then the US would still be British territory and it would be a source of chaos for the international community. Experts such as John Tkacik have pointed out that A Map of the Myriad Countries of the World (坤輿萬國全圖), created by Matteo Ricci for the Ming Dynasty’s Wanli Emperor in the early 17th century, does not include the Spratly Islands (Nansha Islands, 南沙群島) as part of the Ming empire.
The cause of China’s defeat was Beijing’s abandonment of late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s (鄧小平) policy of keeping a low profile, which has led to open ambition and saber rattling, with Beijing now deciding to ignore the ruling without consulting authorities on diplomatic policy.
The international court’s ruling is likely to set a precedent, and signatories to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea must respect and follow the ruling. This ruling will be followed by questions and criticism from other countries that will challenge China’s tough approach toward its regional neighbors.
Be that as it may, China is the troublemaker and it will also have to take steps to resolve the issue. The way to maintain regional peace and order is for China to respect and implement the ruling and fulfill its responsibilities as a signatory to the convention. It must reign in its horses and stop its militarization of the South China Sea and enter into talks with the other countries in order to resolve the conflict.
If it does not, if it insists on not accepting, not participating in, not recognizing and not implementing the ruling, which it refers to as “a piece of scrap paper,” its reputation as the “South China Sea bully” that does not respect treaties it signs will hurt China’s international image and status and become an impediment to the “One Belt, One Road” strategy that Beijing is working so hard to promote and expand.
Even worse, if China loses its temper and intensifies its militarization of the region and perhaps takes other steps, such as denouncing the treaty, setting up an air defense identification zone or perhaps even taking military action, it will have to pay a price in addition to having lost the case.
The South China Sea conflict was initiated by China, but it has also had a far-reaching impact on Taiwan. In addition to the government’s declaration that the decision was unacceptable, there is certain to be more to follow.
The ruling was basically the worst-case scenario that the government had prepared for: Itu Aba and other South China Sea islands were originally not part of the conflict, but they were involved and were all downgraded to rocks.
As a ruling on sovereignty was not within the arbitration’s remit, Taiwan’s sovereignty and de facto control of the island was not affected, but the exclusive economic zone shrunk to that of territorial waters. That will have an impact on fishing rights, which requires a response.
President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration has said that it will safeguard the nation’s territory and sovereignty and that it will not allow national interests to suffer. Tsai, who is also commander in chief, inspected a frigate headed for the South China Sea to declare her stance. These were all necessary actions.
Both the government and the opposition have expressed their resentment and anger over the ruling, while at the same time reviewing South China Sea policy and international strategy.
In effect, Taiwan is faced with an external challenge and must establish a unified approach to that challenge and avoid infighting. The opposition leader and some legislators have directed their criticism at Tsai, which was inappropriate. At the same time, some people have proposed cooperating with China and jointly safeguarding sovereignty over Itu Aba and the South China Sea. This must not happen.
The fact is that the ruling belittled Taiwan, calling it the “Taiwan Authority of China.” In addition, it did not ask for Taiwan’s position during the proceedings, all of which is due to China’s long-term suppression of Taiwan in the international arena.
China has always done all it can to reject Taiwan’s sovereignty and block its international status, but now China itself is on the receiving end of an international diplomatic defeat and risks becoming isolated. If Taiwan reacts in the same way as China, it will further help to strengthen the international view that Taiwan is part of China, endangering its sovereignty and dignity. It will also insult the US and ASEAN, which would create problems in terms of Taiwan’s diplomatic security and the new southbound policy.
If China wants to be perceived as the bully of the South China Sea, let it, and let it suffer the consequences. There is no need for Taiwan to go down the same road. Instead, it must consolidate its sovereignty over Itu Aba and protect Taiwan’s fishing rights in the region.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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