The current political situation in Taiwan reminds me of Baltic countries 12 to 15 years ago.
At the end of the 1980s, after former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev's reforms, democratic movements grew throughout the vast Soviet empire. Baltic countries, including my homeland of Estonia, were among the first to see these movements develop.
The Communist Party in Estonia was quickly losing its authority. Most of its clever top officials started to change their colors. The Party for the National Independence of Estonia was formed in 1988 and declared that restoring the status of Estonia as a fully independent country was its ultimate goal. A Moscow-backed democratic movement, the People's Front, opposed it and called for the support of Gorbachev and a kind of autonomy within the Soviet Union.
In these critical years the pro-independence forces took the political initiative and gained the people's support. They initiated and successfully executed a campaign registering Estonian citizens, including overseas Estonians, to distinguish them from Russian migrants who had settled in Estonia in massive numbers over the decades of Soviet rule. In this way a new legislature was formed with the exclusive right to decide the status of the Estonian nation. In 1990, Estonia's citizens elected the Estonian Congress, an alternative to the pro-Soviet Supreme Council legislative body.
The rhetoric of the Peoples' Front criticized the "radical" nationalists and Estonians were warned "not to provoke Moscow." But with the success of the pro-independence forces, they, and even the Estonian branch of the Communist Party, came to support full independence for the country.
Despite heavy criticism from within and outside Estonia, pro-independence forces were always several steps ahead of current events. This, together with their courage and resolve, meant that Estonia was prepared for the decisive moment that arrived in August 1991, when the conservative wing of the Communist Party in Moscow staged a coup in an attempt to eliminate Gorbachev and take power. As we know, that plan failed, but it spelled the end for Gorbachev as well. The new leadership, with Boris Yeltsin at the helm, took power in Russia.
During those critical days, the Estonian Congress and Supreme Council achieved a consensus and declared Estonia an independent republic. Yeltsin's new government in Moscow, needing any support it could find, quickly recognized it, as it did for Latvia and Lithuania. Other countries elsewhere in the world followed, including China. One month later, the three Baltic countries were admitted into the UN.
Similar processes are now taking place in Taiwan. Despite all of the diplomatic rhetoric, anybody who reflects carefully on the matter must acknowledge that, in the longer term, Taiwan has no alternative but to bring about de jure independence, and that it is only a matter of time before the communist regime in China collapses.
So, in the light of the Baltic experience, it is clear that President Chen Shui-bian's (
On the other hand, based on the Baltic experience, we also acknowledge that this opportunity depends on the attitude of Beijing. There is no doubt that the world, including the US and the UN, will recognize Taiwan's independence only after Beijing has done so. And Beijing will do this only when it is profitable for its leadership to do so, as was the case for Moscow and the Baltic countries.
Mart Laanemets is a Taipei-based academic and freelance reporter.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS