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.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS