|
Former director’s views on maritime claims his own: AIT
Staff writer, with CNA
The suggestion by a former American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) director that Taiwan should abandon its current approach to making territorial claims in the South China Sea were his own views, the AIT said on Monday.
AIT spokesman Mark Zimmer told the Central News Agency that William Stanton, who headed the AIT’s Taipei office from 2009 to 2012, did not represent the US government and was speaking in his capacity as a private citizen.
Stanton said in a recent speech that because of the risks of sovereignty disputes in the South China Sea, Taiwan should consider abandoning its claims based on the “nine-dash line.”
Both Taiwan and China use the line, which encompasses most of the South China Sea and extends as far south as the coast of East Malaysia.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs quickly rejected Stanton’s proposal
“The Spratly Islands [Nansha Islands, 南沙群島], Paracel Islands [Xisha Islands, 西沙群島], Macclesfield Bank [Zhongsha Islands, 中沙群島] and the Pratas Islands [Dongsha Islands, 東沙群島], as well as their surrounding waters, are inherent parts of Republic of China [ROC] territory,” the ministry said.
That sovereignty of these areas belongs to the ROC is undeniable from the perspectives of history, geography and international law, the ministry said.
The government aims to work with other nations in the region to maintain regional peace and stability based on the fundamental principle of “safeguarding sovereignty, shelving disputes, pursuing peace and reciprocity, and promoting joint exploration and development,” the ministry said.
The U-shaped nine-dash line dates back to 1947, when the ROC still controlled China, Academia Historica Director Lu Fang-shang (呂芳上) said earlier this month, and it has remained the basis for the territorial claims of both the ROC and the People’s Republic of China.
Washington has publicly challenged China’s use of the line. A US Department of State official said in February that Chinese claims to maritime rights not based on claimed land were inconsistent with international law.
source: Taipei Times
|
