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.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS