Recently, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration has been trying to make its case for sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台) in Washington. They sent former representative Stephen Chen (陳錫蕃), who spoke at a seminar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Wednesday. He did not do a very good job.
Chen spun a long and confusing tale, arguing that on the basis of historical records the islands — known as the Senkakus in Japan — were an “inherent part of ROC [Republic of China] territory,” as they had always been a subsidiary of Taiwan. He even argued that on the basis of the Cairo and Potsdam declarations, the islands “should have been returned to the ROC.” Of course, neither the Cairo nor Potsdam declarations make any mention of the islands.
Chen also stated that in 1971 and 1972, the US “made a mistake” in turning the Diaoyutais over to Japan as part of the agreement retroceding the island of Okinawa. The interesting thing is of course, that until 1971, Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) ROC did not claim ownership of the islands when they were administered by the US as part of its trusteeship of the Ryukyu Islands.
A recent study by Academia Sinica even shows that Chiang’s government specifically excluded the Diaoyutais from its territory, as the islands were not shown as part of ROC territory on official government maps until 1971.
Chen’s misstatements prompted the normally pro-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Alan Romberg to distance himself from the Ma government. Romberg stated that allowing 75 fishing boats to sail to the islands and protecting them with coast guard vessels had not helped the case for the Ma government in Washington. He said that the timing of Ma’s “East China Sea peace proposal” was not well received in Washington, adding that the proposal had stirred up passions that put it into the “unhelpful category.”
So, what would be a good way forward for Taiwan in this muddled situation? A number of pointers were given by a third speaker at the seminar, former US deputy assistant secretary of state Randall Schriver. He said that while Taiwan is the smallest of the three claimants, and does not have an internal consensus on the issue, it does have a clear bottom line: its fishing rights.
Schriver emphasized that Taiwan finds itself squeezed between its most important economic partner, China, and its most important security partners, Japan and the US. He implied that it would be wise for Taiwan to attach more importance to its ties with its security partners, and said that while the US had not formally taken a position on the sovereignty of the Diaoyutais, it had strongly emphasized that they fall under the terms of the Japan-US Security Treaty.
Schriver also stated that if the sovereignty case were to be taken to an international forum for settlement, then Japan would have a good chance of winning, as its claims were strong.
Still, he felt that Taiwan could play a role in the peaceful settlement of the issue, if it played its cards right, implying that this would mean coming to an amicable agreement with Japan on the fisheries issue, but not playing up sovereignty claims, where Taiwan’s cards are weaker.
Mei-chin Chen is a Washington-based commentator.
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