Following China’s highly controversial unilateral demarcation of an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) covering airspace over the East China Sea, and just as countries affected by the move were voicing their protests loud and clear, Taiwan’s Minister of Transportation and Communications Yeh Kuang-shih (葉匡時) struck an entirely different note by saying that Taiwan would submit flight plans to China in line with international practice laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
The minister is confused, to say the least. All the statements made by various nations about China’s air defense identification zone have without exception been made by their ministers of defense or foreign affairs, which shows that this is by no means purely a civil aviation issue.
The kinds of zone that the ICAO regulates are flight information regions (FIR), whose purpose is to provide flight information services that help ensure air traffic safety. It is extraordinary that Yeh, as Taiwan’s top official in charge of civil aviation, does not know the difference between an air defense identification zone and a flight information region.
To make matters worse, members of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) national security team said that they would handle the issue of China’s air defense identification zone entirely in accordance with international regulations and accepted practice. However, these zones have no basis in international law and there is no international mechanism for overseeing them. It follows that there are no prevailing international regulations governing air defense identification zones, let alone accepted practice.
Air defense identification zones originate from the time when East and West were at loggerheads, and especially following the Soviet Union’s deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles. It was under such circumstances that the US demarked air defense identification zones around North America.
However, these zones were only concerned with aircraft heading toward the US. In practice they did not apply to aircraft that crossed an air defense identification zone but flew parallel to, rather than toward, US territory. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, the purpose of these air defense zones has changed and they are now mostly to do with preventing terrorism and stopping drug smugglers.
China claims that it has set up its air defense identification zone over the East China Sea in exercise of its right to self defense. In reality, however, the move is a follow-up to its submission of a map of its claimed coastal baselines to the UN last year, and is similarly intended to strengthen its claim of sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台). It is also meant to establish a basis for challenging Japan’s aerial patrols in the airspace over the Diaoyutai Islands.
China’s move effectively extends the dispute about sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands from the Earth’s surface up into the sky above. Considering that Taiwan is one of the claimants in the Diaoyutai Islands dispute, how can we indirectly support China’s standpoint?
China’s declaration of the air defense identification zone highlights its gangster mentality, as it tries to use institutional means to change the “status quo” in the East China Sea region. Taiwan should learn a lesson from the affair and handle it with the utmost caution.
As to those in charge of the issue in Taiwan, they have clearly been incapable of grasping the core issues involved in this dispute. In view of that failure, how can they be expected to safeguard the nation’s sovereignty and dignity?
Chen Rong-jye is a law professor and a former secretary-general of the Straits Exchange Foundation.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS