There are two fundamental flaws in the unificationist faction's understanding of the Diaoyutai (釣魚台) issue. First, it thinks that although China, Japan and South Korea have signed bilateral fishing agreements, Taiwan cannot sign such pacts as long as the issue of sovereignty over the islands remains unresolved. Second, they believe that the government is too soft, which invites Japanese bullying and disaster for the fishermen.
The reality is quite the opposite. The government is far tougher on the Diaoyutai issue than Beijing. Taiwan's belief that a resolution to the territorial issue is required for defining fishing areas is a major reason why an agreement cannot be reached. While former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (
Because "protection of the Diaoyutais" is a lofty cause to some people in Taiwan, it has become an essential focus for negotiations for them. This is making negotiations very difficult and is harmful to the interests of fishermen. The basis on which the unification camp attempts to claim sovereignty and protect the Diaoyutais is also incorrect.
The most beneficial standpoint for Japan would be to fall back on the principle of actual controlled territory and emphasize that the development and occupation of the Diaoyutais were never challenged between 1894 and 1970. China thinks its strength is its historical records and the eastward extension of the continental shelf.
Taiwan's strongest card is that it is the traditional fishing grounds for Taiwanese fishermen, and, more important, geologically speaking, the Diaoyutais and the Ryukyus are separated by a trench, with the Diaoyutai islands being an extension of the Tatun mountain range (大屯山脈).
It is, however, very strange that the Ministry of the Interior has written 11 pages of argument for Taiwan's claim to territorial sovereignty over the Diaoyutais. The arguments are overwhelmingly focused on Chinese history and emphasize that the Diaoyutais are traditional Chinese territory. This is not, in fact, a strong point, because if it were, China would be able to go all the way back to Genghis Khan and claim that Moscow is Chinese territory.
The most geologically beneficial fact, the Tatun mountain range extension, is not mentioned at all. Instead, an argument is made emphasizing the eastward extension of the Chinese continental shelf. What's more, although an argument is made based on the area being part of Taiwan's traditional fishing grounds, that argument is given little space. Even worse, the overall logic of the argument is that Taiwan is part of China, and therefore the Diaoyutais are part of Taiwan.
These arguments are of no help to Taiwan's position in the Diaoyutai conflict, and in fact forcefully pushes Taiwan further away from discussions over the sovereignty issue.
The reason for this is very simple. Japan recognized Beijing as the only legal government of China when the two established diplomatic relations. Therefore Tokyo must recognize Beijing as its counterpart in any negotiations regarding matters involving China. The more Taiwan claims that the Diaoyutais belong to China, the less right it has to engage Japan in talks about sovereignty over the islands.
Therefore what Taiwan should claim is the following:
Chinese and Japanese academics already recognize that the Diaoyutais are the extension of the Tatun mountain range. The islands therefore belong to Taiwan, and should be treated as such. That means that they were ceded together with Taiwan to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki, and that Tokyo gave up its claims on the island together with Taiwan in the San Francisco peace treaty in 1952. Because the islands stayed a US trusteeship after the war, Taiwan made no claims, but they should have been returned to Taiwan when the trusteeship ended. Furthermore, because Japan does not recognize Taiwan as a part of China, the government of Taiwan of course also possesses the right to engage with Japan.
This is the only way that Taiwan can claim sovereignty over the Diaoyutais. If the ministry continues to follow the unificationist faction's arguments, they will only be working in Beijing's favor and end up with nothing. As for fishing negotiations, we should take the same pragmatic approach as Beijing and leave aside negotiations regarding sovereignty over the islands.
We should not follow the ideology of Taiwan's unificationists, who are a hundred times more dogmatic than Beijing. This, and only this, would be of benefit to Taiwanese fishermen.
Lin Cho-shui is a DPP legislator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS