In a symbolic and political move aimed at asserting the nation’s sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台), President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) visited the Pengjia Islet (彭佳嶼) on Friday and laid out the details of his East China Sea peace initiative on the closest islet to the Diaoyutais. His proposal for a trilateral dialogue between Taiwan, Japan and China to shelve their differences and jointly develop the resources in the Diaoyutais is a good one in theory, and aims to prevent Taiwan from being marginalized in the fight for the islands’ sovereignty.
The problem is that Taiwan does not have the clout to entice China and Japan to the negotiating table. The initiative has also strayed from the government’s long-term stance of not teaming up with China in defense of its sovereignty over the contested island chain. The Ma administration has argued that the Diaoyutais are an integral part of the Republic of China’s (ROC) territory. Beijing also claims sovereignty over the Diaoyutais as part of its territory.
If Taiwan and China initiated a bilateral dialogue on the Diaoyutais as suggested by Ma, the two sides would actually enter political negotiations as the issue of national sovereignty must be addressed, and the “one China” principle will be put to test. By recognizing the recent display of the ROC national flag by pro-China activists on the islands and by proposing bilateral talks between Taiwan and China to cooperate on the issue of the Diaoyutais, the Ma administration could risk jeopardizing the nation’s sovereignty.
As tensions between the three competing countries escalate, the trilateral dialogue proposal — which Ma said could be achieved through “three-sided bilateral talks” first — may strengthen Taiwan’s role in the extravaganza, but as the government tries to avoid the risk of marginalization amid the competition, it should be cautious about Beijing taking advantage of nationalist sentiment.
It is notable that as the dispute over the Diaoyutais continues, the annual APEC forum was held in Russia last week. Both China and Japan used the occasion to claim sovereignty over the islands. In a press conference to sum up the annual forum, Japan insisted on its plan to nationalize the Diaoyutais, known as the Senkakus in Japan, and said it will continue with the plan to purchase three islands of the island chain from private owners in order to “maintain regional stability and peace.” Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Qin Gang (秦剛) later reaffirmed Beijing’s hard-line stance against Japan over rival claims to the Diaoyutais, and said it is the responsibility of people across the Taiwan Strait to defend the islands’ sovereignty because the Diaoyutais are an integral part of China’s territory.
Amid the war of words between China and Japan, Taiwan is largely ignored. The Japanese government has said that it has learned the about the East China Sea peace initiative, but does not yet have a response. The issue was also not on the agenda during the meeting of Taiwan’s APEC envoy, former vice president Lien Chan (連戰), and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) on the sidelines of the forum. During the meeting, Hu stressed the importance for Taiwan and China to uphold the “one China” principle especially when handling major issues.
Hu’s remarks serve as yet another reminder that China would continue to interfere in Taiwan’s international affairs and control the nation’s international participation under the “one China” principle, which for Beijing, means the People’s Republic of China.
It is a risky move to propose a trilateral dialogue to resolve the disputes over the Diaoyutais, and since Ma has promised not to team up with China in handling the issue, the government should simply initiate negotiations with Japan. That would be a winning situation for both sides.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at