U-Shaped
Line Remains at the Heart of the ROC’s South China Sea Territorial Claim
12 July 2016
Following today’s award by
the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague in the Netherlands in
favor of the Philippines in its case against mainland China pursuant to the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Kuomintang (KMT) announced that it will
not accept the ruling. Not only did the KMT reject the ruling that high-tide features in the Spratly
Islands, including Taiping Island (garrisoned by the ROC continuously since
1956) are "rocks" and not islands, our party also reiterated the ROC's
sovereign claims over the South China Sea islands, and that the ruling is not
legally binding on the ROC.
If there is a positive
outcomes from today’s award, it is that President Tsai Ing-wen and her foreign
policy advisors finally recognize the important role such claims are in order
to maintain the ROC’s status as a sovereign country. In fact, the Presidential
Office said that the government will make “every effort to safeguard the
country's sovereignty and territory and protect the interests of the country.”
This country is of course the ROC, a fact that heretofore many in Tsai’s
government and Democratic Progressive Party have been reluctant to use.
Successive ROC governments
have maintained a “U-shaped line” claim in the South China Sea subsequent to
the publication in 1947 by our government of the “Location Map of the South
China Sea Islands”. This map included the Tungsha (Pratas), Shisha (Paracels), Chungsha
(Macclesfield Bank) and Nansha (Spratlys) island groups. In Taiwan the line is
often referred to as a U-shaped line, and outside Taiwan as the eleven-dashed
line or subsequent to adjustment by mainland China, the nine-dashed line. On 15
July 2015 our Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a detailed explanation of our
claim, noting that from the perspectives of history, geography, or
international law, the Nansha, Shisha, Chungsha, and Tungsha islands, as well
as their surrounding waters, are an inherent part of ROC territory and waters. The
San Francisco Peace Treaty, which entered into effect on April 28, 1952, as
well as the Treaty of Peace between the ROC and Japan which signed that same
day, together with other international legal instruments, reconfirmed that Taiwan
and the islands and reefs in the South China Sea should be returned to the ROC.
Taiping Island (Itu Aba)
has groundwater wells, natural vegetation, and phosphate ore and fishery
resources, and personnel stationed on Taiping cultivate vegetables and fruit
and raise livestock. Taiping indisputably qualifies as an “island” according to
Article 121 of UNCLOS as it can sustain human habitation and economic life of
its own. Today’s award by the PCA does not change this, and the strength of the
PCA’s credibility on this issue is limited given that it did not visit Taiping.
Similarly, the award in favor of the Philippines that disputed land formations in
the South China Sea are not islands and thus not entitled to a 200-nautical
mile exclusive economic zone was not based on site inspections, and can only
lead to greater confusion and disputes among the competing claimants.
Former President Ma
Ying-jeou actively promoted a South China Sea Peace Initiative that would peacefully
utilize South China Sea resources, and todays’ award illustrates how prescient
this KMT proposal was.
Similar to the successful East China Sea Peace Initiative that resulted in
significant progress in Taiwan – Japan relations, the South China Sea Peace
Initiative calls on all concerned parties to shelve sovereignty disputes,
exercise restraint, agree to resolve disputes peacefully, establish a code of
conduct, respect the United Nations Charter and Convention on the Law of the
Sea, and jointly develop resources.
Last September,
President Tsai told foreign diplomats that if elected, she will “engage in
dialogue with different parties with the purpose of finding a diplomatic
solution” to address sovereignty disputes. In the aftermath of the forthright
statements made by her office following the PCA award, perhaps it is time for President
Tsai to adapt a more concrete policy such as the South China Sea Peace
Initiative to replace her preferred ambiguity. The urgency of the situation
amid potential for conflict makes this a time when President Tsai should not seek
pride of authorship and waste time
crafting a newly named but KMT’s sovereign protecting South China Sea policy.
