Taiwan: the Sixth Party to the Spratly Islands Dispute?
The Spratly Islands refers to the chain of Islands in the South China Sea located in the middle of five nations. For the last few decades, China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei have claimed different portions of the islands. Malaysia and Brunei claim sovereignty over small part of the islands and the sea, whereas the former three countries, plus Taiwan, claim the biggest portions of the islands.
Like many modern territorial disputes, the Spratly Islands dispute is a legacy of colonialism. The dispute began with the conclusion of the San Francisco Treaty of 1951, which forced Japan to give up territories gained under the colonial policy. Japan renounced its claim over the Spratly Islands, along with other territories, but it has been impossible to track back to the original ownership of the islands. The discovery of rich oil and gas reserves in the region have continued to intensify the dispute. The islands’ location in the middle of a land circle formed by five nations further adds to their strategic importance, since the country that possesses the right to extract the resources and control traffic through the South China Sea will gain huge economic and military benefits.
Currently, China and Taiwan lay claims on the entirety of the islands. China claims that it discovered and has been occupying the islands since the 12th century. Since the issuing of a map in 1947 that marked the region as a Chinese territory, China has maintained that the islands have comprised an integral part of the nation. In 2014, China began planting artificial lands to the Spratlys by dumping sand onto reefs and shoals. Meanwhile, Vietnam argues that it has governed the general area, including the islands, since the 17th century, and that historical records of its governance exist. The Philippines contends that the continental shelf of the Kalayaan Islands, a part of the island chain, stretches into its exclusive economic zone (for more information, check here).
Taiwan, while not officially an independent state, is another party to the dispute that claims the entire territory of the islands. In 1939, when Taiwan was still under Japanese rule, Japan moved the Spratly Islands to Taiwan’s administration. Taiwan maintains that it gained a de facto control in 1946 from Japan, and has never given up the territory. Currently, Taiwan is occupying Itu Aba, the largest island among the Spratlys. This year, Taipei has announced that it was considering a permanent armed patrol around the region, and Taiwan’s Minister of National Defense has conducted an inspection tour to Itu Aba in a military airplane.
Taiwan’s position adds a twist to the Taiwan-mainland China relation. It is easy to see Beijing’s ill feeling towards Taipei’s claim of sovereignty as an independent nation. However, in regards of the dispute, Beijing is left with no choice but to defend Taiwan’s activities. Because Beijing sees Taiwan as its territory, what Taipei does is essentially an act of China. To Beijing, which dreams of a reunification with Taiwan, supporting Taiwan’s claim is still preferable to losing the territory to other countries. In response to Taiwan’s announcement of a possibly permanent patrol, China’s Foreign Ministry has stated that “Relevant activities by Chinese people in the Spratly Islands and its nearby seas, including on Tai Ping [Itu Aba], are beyond reproach.” Nonetheless, independent military activities and sovereignty claims by Taiwan only reinforce its image as a separate nation from mainland China. Especially after the democratic movement in Hong Kong that pushed Beijing to reconsider its treatment of special administrative regions, such actions on Taiwan’s side would not be good tidings to Beijing.
In resolving a territorial dispute where each party’s claim relies on different evidence, establishing agreements on historical facts is crucial. This process requires regional cooperation, as it was once achieved for the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, possibly with helps from relevant third parties. Although a mere agreement on facts would not result in a resolution of the dispute, this process would simplify and clarify the complexity of the dispute. Of course, whether all five parties would want such clarification of facts, which might rule out some claims as illegitimate, is another story.