Nearly half a century separates the Protect the Diaoyutai Islands Movement and the present movement to assert the nation’s sovereignty over Itu Aba Island, (Taiping Island, 太平島). There is a clear divergence between the origins of each of these movements, their truthfulness and the extent to which they enjoy public support, which demonstrates an increased maturity of judgement among the public.
When the dispute over the Diaoyutais (釣魚台) — known as the Senkakus in Japan — originally arose, the islands were not under Taiwan’s control, nor were they under Chinese control. Nevertheless, the islands’ sovereignty was contested by both countries. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), accusing China of instigating leftist disturbances overseas, tried to use nationalism to create a united front among Taiwanese students both at home and abroad. However, this created problems for the KMT, both internationally and domestically.
The Republic of China (ROC) — which has never controlled the Diaoyutais — did not object when the islands were handed over to US trusteeship at the end of World War II. It was only when the islands were about to be returned to Japan, and following leftist demonstrations, that the ROC began to protest.
The China Youth Corps took control of limited domestic demonstrations, while members of the Overseas Affairs Bureau contended with Chinese Communist Party factions abroad. Officials negotiated with the US and asked for a low-key response to avoid creating a large disturbance.
The main difference between the Diaoyutai and Itu Aba movements is between authoritarianism and control of information on the one hand, and democracy and transparency on the other.
The student supporters of the Protect the Diaoyutai Movement were not in full possession of the facts, having been whipped into a frenzy by ROC officials. At rallies, the students shouted for the islands’ sovereignty to be upheld, but they had no means of setting foot on them, legislators did not dare to grandstand over the issue and even the angry young people did not dare to call on Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) to visit the islands and declare sovereignty.
There are no hot-headed young people taking part in today’s Itu Aba protection movement, just a collection of politicians whose delirious ravings are putting them at risk of high blood pressure. In particular, it is the KMT politicians who lost power in January’s presidential and legislative elections — and who are now being stripped of their ill-gotten assets — who are clamoring the loudest.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague’s verdict on the South China Sea dispute between China and the Philippines did not touch on the issue of Itu Aba’s sovereignty and Taiwanese students have not been duped by their government this time. All the KMT politicians can do is create a hullabaloo among themselves.
The KMT’s performance has failed to draw a large audience. The party is trying to persuade President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and Minister of National Defense Feng Shih-kuan (馮世寬) to play along with their childish game by demanding that they take part in a wholly unnecessary visit to Itu Aba to publicly declare sovereignty over it. Their goal is to divert the government’s attention and change the political narrative into a united front in support of China’s nationalist, anti-US stance.
The era when the KMT was able to control the flow of information and distract the public with red herrings is well and truly over. The KMT’s trickery over Itu Aba is doomed to failure, and it will do nothing to protect the party’s ill-gotten assets or alter the younger generation’s patriotism and identification with Taiwan.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Edward Jones
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath