Batanes: Another of China’s Territorial Narratives

The recent assertions by some Chinese scholars that Batanes is part of Taiwan and, therefore, belongs to China should not be dismissed as merely an eccentric academic theory. Nor should they be mistaken for official Chinese policy. But given Batanes’ strategic location and the growing possibility of a Taiwan contingency, the claim deserves far greater scrutiny than it has so far received.

At a June 30 symposium at Jinan University in Guangzhou, Chinese scholars reportedly argued that Batanes is a natural geographical extension of Taiwan and invoked alleged historical links between the islands and Taiwan during the Ming and Qing periods. But prominent Philippine historians have rejected these historical arguments, pointing to the absence of credible evidence that Batanes was ever governed by China and emphasizing its long history of Spanish and subsequently Philippine administration.

There is no doubt that Batanes has never been part of Taiwan. The claims made by some Chinese scholars may have less to do with history and more to do with geography and strategy. Batanes is only about 160 kilometers south of Taiwan and sits near the Bashi Channel, an important maritime passage connecting the West Philippine Sea (WPS) and Luzon Strait.

This strategic dimension is what makes the Chinese scholars’ claims particularly troubling. If Batanes is portrayed as an extension of Taiwan, China could eventually use this narrative to question the Philippines’ lawful activities in the area or justify challenging our military presence and access to the waters around Luzon.

An important distinction, however, must be made. The claim by the Chinese scholars does not, at present, constitute an official territorial claim by China over Batanes. This is also the position of the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs. That distinction is important because it prevents our country from being alarmist. But it should not be an excuse for complacency.

The Philippines has learned from China’s expansive nine-dash line claim that territorial claims can gain traction when historical interpretations, maps, academic arguments, and political statements reinforce one another. Repeated assertions can eventually be backed by diplomatic pressure, a growing maritime presence, and even coercive actions.

The Philippines should take these scholars’ assertions seriously, not because they have a historical or legal basis but because of where Batanes is located, what lies across the Bashi Channel, and what could happen if Taiwan becomes the next flash point in the Indo-Pacific. This is not simply a debate about history; we must prevent a simple academic argument from evolving into a political or strategic justification for future pressure against our country.

The appropriate response is neither alarmism nor complacency. The Philippines should strengthen the historical and legal documentation of its sovereignty over Batanes and communicate it to the international community. It should enhance maritime domain awareness around the Bashi Channel and northern approaches to our country.

It should also intensify consultations with Taiwan and like-minded partners, particularly Japan, the United States, and Australia, while avoiding unnecessary steps that could turn Batanes into another regional flashpoint.

We should not wait for China to turn an academic narrative into a state policy before deciding that it matters. The experience in the WPS has already taught us the cost of ignoring seemingly distant claims. Batanes should never become another lesson learned too late. As the saying goes, “the first deception is on the deceiver, the second is on the one who failed to learn from it.”

Raul B. Leyritana,
raul.leyritana79@gmail.com

For letters to the editor and contributed articles, email to opinion@inquirer.net