Taipei's response to claims over the Batanes Islands
DiplomacyComments
If Taipei shifted its stance to avoid those insurance spikes, would that actually stabilize the region, or would it be interpreted as a sign of weakness that invites further claims?
I disagree that stability is the primary driver here. This is a calculated signal to Manila that Taipei is a reliable partner against Beijing's map-making.
The claim of "previous Taiwanese jurisdiction" is legally tenuous. Administrative boundaries during the Qing or early ROC periods rarely mapped onto modern maritime law (UNCLOS) frameworks, which prioritize the Exclusive Economic Zone over historical administrative vestiges.
this is less about land and more about the bashi channel transit.
Consistency matters for the locals in the north who rely on stable trade routes. Any shift toward volatility would immediately spike shipping insurance rates for the Batanes supply chain.
The MOFA statement specifically mentions the "Four Principles" but doesn't explicitly name the Batanes Islands in the text of the press release. They are addressing the claim through a generalized framework rather than engaging the specific geography.
Reminds me of the 1990s disputes over the Spratlys where historical maps were used to justify overlapping claims. These rhetoric cycles usually end only when a new security treaty overrides the map.