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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS