Twenty opposition lawmakers are to visit Itu Aba (Taiping Island, 太平島) on Saturday next week, a trip that not only has raised controversy domestically, but might also cause more unnecessary friction between nations in the region.
The 46-hectare Taiping Island, the largest of the naturally occurring Spratly Islands (Nansha Islands, 南沙群島) in the South China Sea, is 1,637 km southwest of Taiwan proper. It has been under the control of Taiwan since 1956 and administered as part of the municipality of Kaohsiung, although China, Vietnam and the Philippines also claim sovereignty.
While the delegation’s original departure on Thursday next week has been pushed back, the delegation had emphasized that it would pick a new date tovisit Taiping before the inauguration of president-elect William Lai (賴清德) on May 20.
The opposition lawmakers plan to travel in a C-130 Hercules escorted by air and marine units, and intend to stay on the island for only two hours.
Delegation leader Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Ma Wen-chun (馬文君) said the visit has three purposes: to demonstrate Taiwan’s sovereignty over the island, to inspect ongoing construction and to boost the morale of the island’s garrison.
However, both the National Security Bureau and Ministry of Foreign Affairs have warned that it is not an appropriate time for either the president or lawmakers to visit Taiping.
The tensions between China and the Philippines are escalating because of territorial disputes, which have been aggravated by unlawful Chinese occupation and establishment of infrastructures on disputed shoals, and increasing skirmishes between the two countries’ coast guard vessels.
To reaffirm sovereignty is justifiable in and of itself, however such a delicate issue should be carried out at the right time.
Otherwise this could have a negative impact on Taiwan’s international image.
Then-president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) visit to Taiping in 2016 when the Philippine government had filed an arbitration case against China under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea was not only criticized for worsening regional tensions, but it also foolishly brought Taiping, which originally was excluded from Philippine’s legal arguments, into the case.
Ma’s reckless move led to a ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration to define Taiping as a “rock” and not subject to the convention, which has negatively impacted the legitimacy of Taiwan’s control over the island.
Having held Taiping for more than seven decades, Taiwan has deployed more than 200 coast guard personnel and built a hospital, farm and runway.
In January, under President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) instruction, the Coast Guard Administration completed a dredging project to allow larger vessels to dock at its wharf.
Nevertheless, while there is no urgent threat to Taiping’s security, the opposition politicians’ trip could be considered a trouble-making act that could escalate tensions.
It might also be seen as an attempt to echo China’s latest “10-dash line” claim in the South China Sea with Taiwan as “part of China,” which could further irritate Indo-Pacific states and democratic allies.
The opposition parties should understand the consequences of this reckless and unnecessary trip.
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
RSS