Taiwanese flyover refused: double standards

Three small states apply the law and their constant policy… and find themselves indicted. The great powers, for their part, allow themselves all the nuances. Does each have its own principles?

The refusal by Mauritius, the Seychelles and Madagascar to allow an aircraft linked to Taiwan to fly over their airspace has triggered a round of criticism in certain Western capitals. The vocabulary used – “abuse”, “pressure”, “intimidation” – betrays less a legal analysis than a political reflex.

Because in terms of law, there is little debate. The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation is unequivocal… “each State exercises full and complete sovereignty over its airspace. Article 1 enshrines the principle, and Article 3 recalls that a State aircraft cannot fly over foreign territory without prior authorization. hovering is not a right. It is a permission.

It is therefore, to say the least, paradoxical to see the very exercise of this sovereignty described as “abuse”. Why, then, such agitation? Because the question is not only aerial. It is eminently political.

The so-called Republic of China (Taiwan) is only recognized by a handful of states – barely a dozen, including Eswatini in Africa – but it benefits, at the same time, from relations of remarkable density with countries which, officially, do not recognize it.

Ambiguity assumed, some will say. Organized ambivalence, others will say.

Mauritius, for its part, made a clear choice in 1972, under the government of Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam: to recognize Beijing as the People’s Republic of China as the sole legitimate government. This choice did not vary in principle. Certainly, there were, on occasion, a few minor slips—often attributable more to a lack of insight than to a deliberate inflection—but they were quickly corrected. The essential, however, remains: a foreign policy marked by constancy, clarity and respect for commitments made.

In this context, granting an overflight to an official Taiwanese aircraft is no longer a simple technical gesture. This could have been interpreted as a form of de facto recognition. To refuse is to remain faithful to a line. To grant was to alter it.

The choice was therefore less political than it seems: it was logical. And yet, the criticisms are rife. The United States, the European Union and the United Kingdom express their “concern”. One speaks of “abuse” of the international air system, while denouncing the “pressure” exerted on Taiwan by Beijing.

The contradiction is difficult to ignore. Because these same actors all recognize the policy of one China, the People’s Republic, which is also a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. And in the same breath, they maintain sustained, visible, sometimes quasi-diplomatic relations with Taiwan. The United States provides military assistance. The United Kingdom maintains a representation which does not say its name. The European Union is increasing its cooperation initiatives.

What, for them, concerns “strategic nuance” becomes, for others, a matter for suspicion. Double standards!

Even more disturbing: the repeated invocation of “pressure” exerted on Taiwan. A legitimate concern, no doubt. But which benefits from being placed in a broader context. The decades of sanctions imposed on Cuba, or the refusal of visas to certain foreign representatives called to participate in United Nations meetings in New York, testify to other forms of constraint… less commented on, but very real. It is well-established notoriety – a veritable open secret in diplomatic circles – that the great powers, all without exception, themselves resort to forms of pressure to bring other states to align with their positions, particularly when these states are smaller or more vulnerable.

The principles, to be credible, cannot be selective.

Attributing the decisions of Mauritius, Seychelles and Madagascar to external influence is a convenient shortcut. It is also, implicitly, denying their ability to decide for themselves. As if the sovereignty of small states was, by nature, suspect.

It is not only a questionable reading, but a revealing one. These countries do not have the military or economic power of large nations. But they have what, in the long term, is the basis of all international credibility: constancy and coherence. The refusal to fly over is the expression of this.

Meanwhile, the same capitals continue their trade with Beijing. Ursula von der Leyen of the EU Commission recently went there, as did Keir Starmer, British Prime Minister, and Donald Trump is expected there soon… a trip simply postponed by his current priorities in the Middle East. Economic interests, for their part, are hardly aware of hesitation.

Realism, clearly, has its constants. For small states, this realism requires another path…clarity of positions and mastery of balances.

Refusing a flyover is not a gesture of hostility. It is an act of coherence. The conclusion is all the more forceful: Sovereignty does not have variable geometry. When it is invoked by some and contested by others, it ceases to be a principle and becomes an instrument.