On Monday, the Russian parliament offered an unqualified example of hypocrisy with a vote in favor of independence for Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia.
Both houses of parliament called on Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to recognize the two breakaway regions as sovereign nations — with not a single lawmaker dissenting. (Medvedev responded yesterday by doing just that.)
Parliamentarians basked in the opportunity to stand on the side of virtue, repeatedly comparing Georgia’s government to Nazi Germany. Lawmakers were also quick to point to the fact that South Ossetia and Abkhazia already met the requirements of statehood.
But the impassioned support of Russian parliamentarians was a bit much to swallow. More than anything, it highlighted the selective reasoning of major international powers such as Moscow and Washington in their approach to the various sovereignty disputes around the globe, including Taiwan’s status.
While there is no doubt that these disputes have substantial differences, one unifying characteristic is that de facto yet unrecognized states find their fates in the hands not of their own people, but of world powers who hold the key to the UN. This small circle of governments is not making decisions based on the best interests of those involved in the conflict, but rather on their own strategic concerns.
Few countries are more familiar with this problem than Taiwan, a former UN member that has watched its number of allies dwindle as China’s clout has grown.
In the case of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it is telling that until recently, Russia showed little interest in backing their arguments for self-rule. While both regions declared formal independence in the early 1990s, Russia’s stance on the matter only began to change earlier this year, indicating that its support was in fact a response to geopolitical factors in the region, as well as its own strategic interests. In March — just two months after Georgia held a referendum on whether to seek NATO membership — Moscow said it would recognize the governments of these two territories if Georgia joined the organization.
Meanwhile, as Moscow feigned concern about ethnic oppression in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, fresh violence in Chechnya over the weekend was a reminder of the unresolved tensions in its own backyard.
It was these enduring problems at home that made Russia’s staunch opposition to Kosovo’s declaration of independence in February so predictable. By now stepping out in favor of independence for Abkhazia and South Ossetia, however, Moscow is departing from the basis of its argument in other disputes.
South Ossetian leader Eduard Kokoity was eager to help Russia justify the illogical. In a speech to lawmakers, Kokoity said that South Ossetia and Abkhazia had more compelling reasons for independence than Kosovo.
Russian parliamentarians were quick to agree. But had they been pressed to clarify Moscow’s opposition to Taiwanese independence in the same breath, achieving any semblance of consistency would have been impossible. That Taiwan is also de facto independent and fulfills the requirements of statehood is undeniable.
In this context, Moscow’s condemnation of Georgian aggression and its pious philosophizing on the rights of these enclaves came across as little more than cant.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS