Two German naval vessels, a supply ship and a frigate, passed through the Taiwan Strait on the way to Jakarta earlier this month, the first time in 22 years that a German warship has transited the Strait.
German Minister of Defense Boris Pistorius announced the transit in Berlin on Friday last week, saying that “international waters are international waters,” and that the transit was in full compliance with international law.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) views the situation differently. Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Mao Ning (毛寧) said that the Taiwan Strait is part of China’s internal waters and therefore part of its exclusive economic zone, and that the passage of the German vessels was provocative, threatened China’s sovereignty, and could put regional peace and stability at risk.
The Taiwan Strait being part of China’s internal waters is consistent with the CCP’s territorial claims over Taiwan. If other nations pay lip service to China’s “one China” principle in their individual “one China” policies, the CPP can say it has a legitimate basis for its “internal waters” claim.
A Ministry of Foreign Affairs news release in June 2022 said that Chinese officials had repeatedly claimed in meetings with the US that the Taiwan Strait does not constitute international waters. The news release refuted these claims and the ministry “reiterate[d] that the Taiwan Strait is international waters and that freedom of the high seas as defined in international law applies to waters beyond Taiwan’s territorial sea limits.”
The German warship transit was the action backing up Pistorius’ words. A more explicit clarification of individual governments exercising their rights of passage through international waters needs to be made to push back against the CCP’s claims.
Ships proceeding south from Japan can take onboard containers in various locations, including Taiwan and the Philippines, sail into the South China Sea and on to Singapore, and from there go through the Strait of Malacca and on to India and Europe. It is also an oil route connecting East Asia with the Middle East. Recognition of the Taiwan Strait as international waters has real and significant implications for global trade.
Looked at from this perspective, one can see yet another aspect of the CCP’s designs over Taiwan as an extension of its claims over virtually all of the South China Sea that forms the basis of the current tensions between Beijing and Manila, and a potential new issue between Beijing and Tokyo.
Japan’s Nikkei Asia magazine has reported that China might be preparing to establish a Ryukyu research center, possibly to back up new CCP rhetoric questioning Japan’s sovereignty over the Ryukyu island chain, which includes Okinawa as well as the Senkaku Islands, known in Taiwan and China as the Diaoyutais (釣魚台). This is not the first time we have seen evidence of CCP officials and Chinese nationalists bringing up the “undecided status” of the islands.
Exactly what is behind the CCP’s “Ryuku card” strategy is unclear. Looking at a map of the Ryukyu islands arc extending from the southern tip of Japan to the east coast of Taiwan, it is not difficult to see how it would impact China’s ambitions to control the first island chain and shipping lanes.
Although the CCP’s rhetoric over Taiwan and the South China Sea is ostensibly about reclaiming its territory lost during its “century of humiliation,” it appears in no rush to take back land in Manchuria stolen by Russia in the 1958 Treaty of Aigun and 1860 Treaty of Beijing.
This apparent contradiction is behind President William Lai’s (賴清德) invocation of Aigun and why the treaties have sparked such interest in Taiwan and overseas.
The time is ripe to respond to the CCP’s false narratives with facts and increased scrutiny.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS