Taiwan is continually being harassed by Chinese warplanes, warships, coast guard vessels, drones and even individuals supposedly wanting to “seek freedom.” China’s threat to punish “die-hard Taiwan independence separatists” is an attempt to stretch the long arm of China’s own laws and control Taiwan. In response, the Mainland Affairs Council raised its travel advisory for people visiting China, Hong Kong and Macau from “yellow” to “orange.”
This was a reasonable step to take to protect Taiwanese. However, Taiwanese “fellow travelers” of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) who oppose Taiwanese independence and promote unification are keen to speak on the Chinese government’s behalf.
They say that the government of President William Lai (賴清德) is trying to scare the public.
They call on the Lai administration to handle cross-strait relations in a pragmatic manner, based on recognizing the so-called “1992 consensus,” a supposed tacit understanding between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the CCP that both sides of the Taiwan Strait acknowledge that there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means.
Meanwhile, NATO, though far away from East Asia, has been shifting the focus of its strategic concerns toward China due to Beijing’s belligerence in the Indo-Pacific region.
“Anti-communism” and “sucking up to China” have become strange bedfellows. As far as the “1992 consensus” is concerned, “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” has long been replaced by “both sides belong to one China.” The simple reason for this shift is that this is the political basis of those who share the CCP’s aspirations.
The song and dance made by “fellow travelers” on both sides of the Taiwan Strait stems from their shared nationalistic tendencies.
It also stems from incentives provided by the objective environment.
First, during the legislative elections on Jan. 13, the KMT won one more seat than Lai’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). With the addition of the eight seats won by the Taiwan People’s Party, who are acting as allies of the KMT, this slim majority is enough to constrain the DPP government. Furthermore, the two parties have been working toward a “parliamentary dictatorship.”
Second, the war between Russia and Ukraine, and the conflict between Israel and Hamas are having worldwide repercussions.
In addition, many of the world’s major democratic countries are holding national elections this year. The outcome of the US presidential election in November is uncertain. Beijing is happy to take advantage of this golden opportunity by applying brinkmanship and “gray zone” aggression to deal with Taiwan, the Philippines and other countries, and this has been raising tensions in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea.
For “fellow travelers,” anything that “our [Chinese President] Xi Jinping (習近平)” says or does is reasonable and justified, while Taiwan is always the one at fault. In their minds, the statement that “the Republic of China (ROC, Taiwan) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) are not subordinate to each other” is tantamount to Taiwanese independence, just as Beijing says. In their view, as long as the ROC does not “belong to one China” along with the PRC, it is parasitic Taiwanese independence, and China’s military threats and maneuvers are justified.
This is very puzzling. UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 handed the ROC’s “right to represent China” over to the PRC. What space do these people think is left for the ROC’s existence under the CCP’s “one-China principle”? Those who oppose independence and promote unification must really be yearning for “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese people,” because if China were to take over Taiwan, the Asia-Pacific region would be incorporated into Beijing’s sphere of influence, and that would make China more able to challenge the US’ hegemony. The root cause of all this is that those “fellow travelers” breathe through the same nostrils as those who doubt or oppose the US.
A retired major general said that if the waters where Chinese coast guards boarded and seized Taiwanese fishing boat Da Jin Man No. 88 (大進滿88號) on July 2 are really determined to be China’s territorial waters, then the Chinese authorities would have a reasonable and legal basis for boarding and inspecting civilian transport vessels.
He said that the boarding, inspection and seizure of the Da Jin Man No. 88 might well be China’s opening move, and there are likely to be more instances of China Coast Guard personnel boarding and inspecting boats in the vicinity.
Furthermore, Kinmen and Lienchiang (Matsu) counties both have numerous outlying islands, where the military rents civilian boats to rotate the personnel stationed there, such as when they go home for holidays. The Chinese and Taiwanese coast guards are on the front line of such incidents.
Is Beijing’s main purpose harassment, is it cognitive or legal warfare or is it a preparatory move for causing conflict?
The waters surrounding Kinmen and Matsu are right under China’s nose. Considering Beijing does not even recognize the median line of the Taiwan Strait, why would it recognize any waters as belonging to Kinmen or Matsu?
On June 21, China issued “22 guidelines” about punishing Taiwanese independence activists, with severe penalties, including the death sentence. China’s Taiwan Affairs Office said that the Chinese authorities would track down “die-hard Taiwan independence separatists” wherever they might be.
Even foreign businesspeople operating in China have sensed the sharply increased risks. In China’s one-party state, human rights lawyers or anyone else can be arrested at the drop of a hat, and leading cadres can be purged at any time. If these things can happen to Chinese citizens, how can outsiders feel safe? It is advisable not to enter a dangerous country, and this includes not only China, but also other autocratic countries that have diplomatic relations with Beijing. Nobody from Taiwan should take these risks lightly. If, by any chance, they are arrested and imprisoned like Taiwanese democracy advocate Lee Ming-che (李明哲) and businessman Morrison Lee (李孟居), it would be too late for regrets.
KMT legislators, including those representing Kinmen and Matsu, have proposed a motion to amend the Offshore Islands Development Act (離島建設條例), to allow Chinese businesses to take part in major construction and investment projects on outlying islands, and for the machinery, technology and operational personnel needed for such projects to be sourced from China, among other things. Of course, this proposal has aroused a lot of controversy.
Kinmen and Matsu have always been included in the formula “Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu,” but some treaties and laws highlight several differences that exist between Taiwan and Penghu on the one hand, and Kinmen and Matsu on the other.
The first is Article 2 of the Treaty of San Francisco, which reads “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa [Taiwan] and the Pescadores [Penghu].”
The second is Article 6 of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the US and Taiwan, which was in effect from 1955 to 1980. The article states that “the terms ‘territorial’ and ‘territories’ shall mean in respect of the Republic of China, Taiwan and the Pescadores.”
The third is Section 15 of the US’ Taiwan Relations Act, which states that “the term ‘Taiwan’ includes, as the context may require, the islands of Taiwan and the Pescadores.”
In contrast to Taiwan proper and Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu have always belonged to China’s Fujian Province, and unlike Taiwan and Penghu, they were not permanently ceded to Japan in Article 2 of the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki signed between the Qing Dynasty and the Japanese empire.
China could say that the US has no right to decide the status of Taiwan and Penghu, but other countries could equally say that China does not have the sole right to decide anything about the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, the East China Sea and other territorial disputes.
As things stand, Taiwan and the PRC are not subordinate to each other, but they do interact with one another, and this is especially true of Kinmen and Matsu, which have since 1949 remained under the unbroken jurisdiction of Taiwan.
At the time of former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), it was only thanks to Kinmen and Matsu that the two Chiangs had any grounds to claim the right to represent China, and it was based on this claim that Chinese leader Mao Zedong (毛澤東) could call for the “liberation” of Taiwan.
Today, the idea that the status of Taiwan and Penghu is undetermined is complicated by the factor of Kinmen and Matsu.
In reality, the US long ago advised the two Chiangs to give up Kinmen and Matsu. When Shih Ming-te (施明德) was chairman of the DPP, he proposed withdrawing all of the ROC’s troops from Kinmen and Matsu, but the DPP has never adopted his proposal as its official policy.
Times have changed, and Beijing has long since denied the existence of the median line of the Taiwan Strait or any tacit agreement that such a line exists. The sovereign nature of Kinmen and Matsu is different from that of Taiwan and Penghu. Moreover, Kinmen and Matsu are easy to attack and difficult to defend. Under current conditions, it is hard to find a solution.
If China wants to avoid stumbling into an armed conflict over Kinmen and Matsu — one that could easily spin out of control — it had better choose the path of self-restraint instead of acting rashly and stirring up trouble.
Translated by Julian Clegg
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
RSS