After KMT Chairman Wu Po-hsiung played down Taiwan's sovereignty in talks with China, refusing to call Ma Ying-jeou "President," and referring to Taiwan as "Chinese Taipei" -- along with referring to people on both sides of the Strait as "Chinese" -- the KMT news network reported today that the Foreign Ministry had asserted the sovereignty of the
ROC over the Tiaoyutai Islands after the incident the other day involving a Japanese frigate colliding with a Taiwanese fishing boat.
The Foreign Ministry also issued a press release, emphasizing, “The Government of the Republic of China has always held the stance that the Tiaoyutai Isles belong to the Republic of China. The resolution to safeguard its sovereignty is indisputable and will not change.”
Chen Lih-torng, director of the Institute of the Law of the Sea at the National Taiwan Ocean University, yesterday demanded that the government change its approach to reassert sovereignty over Tiaoyutai Isles; it should not simply say “to shelve disputes over sovereignty.” Instead, the government should skillfully demonstrate its jurisdiction and ability to enforce laws. For example, he said that, the ROC government should ask Japan to return to the negotiating table immediately, and it should, at the same time, also dispatch frigates to patrol the waters within the 12 miles off the Tiaoyutai Isles so as to reassert ROC sovereignty.
[Taiwan]
2 comments:
Funny. I thought sovereignty was not important. Isn't it way of life that is important instead? Ask Ma. He knows.
From a practical standpoint, I would imagine that this contradictory treatment of sovereignty, where it is considered a viable issue in some contexts and not in others, will continue. Sovereignty will be asserted only when the issue in question does not deal with the separate sovereignties of the ROC and the PRC.
On another note, I have a novel idea. Why call it One Country, Two Interpretations? We can call it One Country, Two Sovereignties. However, I don't think anyone would approve this terminology since, while it is technically more correct, it highlights the paradoxical nature of the KMT's stupid position, made even more confusing by the fact that they can't even be consistent on whether or not their own country's sovereignty is important.
.
.
.
Thomas,
The so-called "1992 consensus" (which is not a consensus by definition) is implicit capitulation to China by the KMT. Internationally, Taiwan is recognized as a de jure country more than the ROC is recognized as "one China".
Strategically, the KMT is undercutting its international leverage with respect to sovereignty by using this so-called "1992 consensus" as a so-called "tool for negotiations".
The so-called "1992 consensus" should be looked at on the same level as treachery, IMO -- just as Lien's high-level visit to China immediately following the anti-secession law should be regarded as treachery.
.
.
.
Post a Comment