Based upon the principles of first discovery and effective occupation of terra nullius, or land belonging to no one, the Diaoyutai (釣魚台) islands unquestionably belong to Japan. If the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) cites history and locale as proof of Taiwan’s sovereignty over the Diaoyutais, then the Taiwanese government could lose its firm footing in arguing for sovereignty over the island of Taiwan itself and of the Spratly Islands (南沙群島) in the South China Sea.
It is confounding to see that while the government of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) seems to be indifferent to safeguarding sovereignty over the island of Taiwan, it does not hesitate to threaten violence against an ally over an uninhabited island that does not belong to Taiwan in the first place.
The intense criticism of the Ma government’s Diaoyutai policy should be considered on two levels. The criticism from KMT members is earnest: They had previously, for inexplicable reasons, obeyed the KMT’s urging and participated in youth movements to “save the Diaoyutais,” believing that the islands are Chinese territory. This, combined with anti-Japanese conditioning, naturally makes their blood boil at the current controversy.
Criticism from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), however, comes from the preconditioning that China is the perceived enemy. The DPP holds friendly relations between Japan and Taiwan in higher regard and is more practical in regard to the Diaoyutai issue. Their criticism of the Ma government’s cowardly behavior was not meant to provoke a tough response from the government, but to force it to admit that its previously impractical policy on the Diaoyutai issue was a mistake.
Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) obviously does not make this distinction. Under criticism from both the pan-blue and pan-green camps, Liu rashly recalled Koh Se-kai (�?�), the Taiwanese representative to Japan. Some have also used the incident to shame Koh and force him to resign. Under fire from legislators, Liu has even declared that war would not be ruled out as a last resort.
One must realize that recognizing a past mistake and being criticized for a mistake are incentives for self-correction — not an encouragement to stubbornly stick to a policy that hurts the nation. The Ma administration should courageously admit that its previous incitement of foolish bravado to protect the Diaoyutais was a mistake — instead of turning around and challenging a major ally to war.
Taiwan and Japan have developed very good relations in the last eight years and their close cooperation on security issues has obviously been a deterrent to China. However, this strategy seems to have changed since the KMT assumed power. Pan-blue politicians have increasingly traveled to China and Taiwan’s main perceived enemy no longer seems to be China.
If so, shouldn’t the national strategy, drawn in accordance with the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the US, be adjusted? The KMT should be proactive in explaining the situation so the public can make a decision. If the KMT still values the treaty, taking a tough stance on such a minor issue as the Diaoyutais is unwise. If it does not need the treaty, then it should explain to the public its new national defense strategy.
The current confusion over Diaoyutais can only mean two things: Either the Ma government wants to change Taiwan’s national defense strategy on the sly, or Liu was caught unaware and has no stance on Asia-Pacific military strategy. Judging by the government’s recent decisions on hiking gas and electricity prices, the latter possibility seems more likely.
Li To-tzu is a doctoral student at Tsing Hua University’s Institute of Sociology.
TRANSLATED BY ANGELA HONG
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