If the competing territorial claims between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in China and the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan were represented as a Venn diagram, the central overlap would contain Taiwan’s outlying Kinmen and Lienchiang (Matsu) counties.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) could claim a historical and legal right over the territories, certainly with more legitimacy than it could for its claim over Taiwan proper, as the islands were part of China prior to the end of World War II. The ROC claims control over them because the ROC defended them against the CCP after it was expelled from China in 1949.
However, is Taiwan still engaged in a civil war with China, as Beijing contends, or has it long been an independent, sovereign, self-ruling country, as most Taiwanese see it?
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might claim all parts of the Venn diagram, but that would be an absurd proposition today. The CCP does claim the entire diagram, but its claims over Taiwan proper have no historical basis, in international law or in reality, and so are equally absurd.
KMT Legislator Chen Yeong-kang (陳永康) has proposed amendments to the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例), which would transfer jurisdiction over the waters surrounding Kinmen and Matsu to the Coast Guard Administration, from the Ministry of National Defense. Chen said the amendments are to reduce the possibility of a military conflict in the area, and would in no way dilute Taiwan’s sovereignty.
However, the proposal says that the relationship between the PRC and the ROC is one of an unresolved civil war. That characterization implies “one China.” That, in turn, would mean the Taiwan Strait is effectively an inland sea belonging to that “one China,” and not a waterway between two sovereign nations that is considered international waters.
In the past few years, Chinese officials have increasingly tried to push the idea that the Taiwan Strait does not constitute international waters, while many countries have sent ships through it to consolidate its status as international waters and their right of innocent passage under international law, specifically the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
If the CCP wins that argument, there would be no necessary right of passage; China would control an important shipping lane and be able to constrict passage by military and commercial vessels. That would also mean that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army could blockade Taiwan and implement “customs inspections” in the area, severely impacting international trade and supply chains, and with some legitimacy. It would also force Taiwan into accepting Beijing’s terms. It could equally demand that other countries do not intervene, because that would constitute “external interference” in China’s “domestic affairs.”
It could also more legitimately call for negotiations based on the so-called “1992 consensus.”
The significant change of affairs, originating in what appears to be an innocent proposal for an amendment designed to reduce tensions, would play right into the hands of the CCP and its concerted “lawfare” plans that go all the way back to the implementation of the 2005 “Anti-Secession Law.” For that reason, the proposed amendments should be treated with caution and suspicion. The same applies to the party that is promoting them.
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
RSS