Taiwanese overflight denied: double standards

Three small states are applying the law and their consistent policies and are facing criticism. Meanwhile, major powers allow for nuances. Is it a matter of each to their own principles?

Mauritius, the Seychelles, and Madagascar refusing to allow the airspace of their territory to be used by an aircraft linked to Taiwan has sparked criticism in some Western capitals. The language used – “abuse,” “pressure,” “intimidation” – reflects more of a political reflex than a legal analysis.

On a legal standpoint, there is hardly any debate. The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation is clear – each state has full sovereignty over its airspace. The principle is enshrined in Article 1 and Article 3 specifies that an aircraft of one state cannot fly over foreign territory without prior authorization. Overflight is not a right, it is a permission.

It is therefore paradoxical to label the exercise of this sovereignty as an “abuse.” Why then the agitation? Because the issue is not just about the airspace. It is inherently political.

The Republic of China (Taiwan) is only recognized by a handful of states, including Eswatini in Africa. Yet, it maintains extensive relationships with countries that officially do not recognize it.

Mauritius, on the other hand, made a clear choice in 1972 under Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam’s government: recognizing Beijing as the only legitimate government of the People’s Republic of China. This choice has remained constant. Although there have been minor shifts at times, they were quickly corrected. The core of the foreign policy remains marked by consistency, transparency, and respect for commitments made.

In this context, granting overflight to an official aircraft from Taiwan is no longer a mere technical gesture. It could have been interpreted as a form of de facto recognition. Refusing it is staying true to a line. Granting it would have altered it.

The decision was less political than it seems: it was logical. Yet, criticisms pour in. The United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom express their “concern.” One speaks of the “abuse” of the international aviation system, while condemning the “pressure” exerted on Taiwan by Beijing.

The contradiction is hard to ignore. These same actors all recognize the One China policy, with the People’s Republic of China being a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Yet, they maintain extensive, sometimes quasi-diplomatic relations with Taiwan. The United States provides military assistance. The United Kingdom maintains a representation that is unofficial. The European Union engages in numerous cooperation initiatives.

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

Even more troubling is the repeated mention of the “pressure” on Taiwan. A legitimate concern, no doubt, but needing to be viewed in a broader context. Decades of sanctions on Cuba or the denial of visas to certain foreign representatives invited to UN meetings in New York also show other forms of constraints – less overt, but real. It is a well-known secret in diplomatic circles that all major powers resort to forms of pressure to align smaller or more vulnerable states with their positions.

Principles, to be credible, cannot be selective.

Attributing the decisions of Mauritius, the Seychelles, and Madagascar to external influence is a convenient shortcut. It also implicitly denies their ability to decide for themselves. As if the sovereignty of small states is inherently suspicious.

This reading is not only debatable but also revealing. These countries may not have the military or economic power of major nations, but they have what forms the basis of international credibility in the long run: consistency and coherence. The refusal of overflight is an expression of this.

In the meantime, major capitals continue their exchanges with Beijing. Ursula von der Leyen from the EU Commission recently visited, as did Keir Starmer, the UK Prime Minister, with Donald Trump expected soon – a trip postponed due to priorities in the Middle East. Economic interests, on the other hand, show little hesitation.

Realism has its constants. For small states, realism follows a different path – clarity of positions and mastery of balances.

Refusing overflight is not an act of hostility, but a gesture of coherence. The conclusion becomes even more apparent: Sovereignty is not variable. When invoked by some and challenged by others, it ceases to be a principle and becomes an instrument.