It would be very tempting to see a decision by the UN’s top court on Thursday recognizing the legality of Kosovo’s declaration of independence from Serbia as a sign that global support for Taiwanese independence could follow.
In reality, however, Kosovo is a false analogy for Taiwan, one that could encourage some to go down a potentially ruinous path.
For one, Kosovo seceded from a sovereign state, Serbia, something that Taiwan could not achieve, because it is already sovereign. A body cannot engage in “separatism” if it is not part of another entity. The political conflict in the Taiwan Strait is better characterized as irredentism — efforts to “recover” a territory that is culturally or historically related to one’s nation, but that is now run by a separate government. While both situations involve the “separation” of two or more entities, the dynamics and means of resolving the problem are entirely different.
This raises the question of legality. While it may be difficult to ascertain how legal the breaking away of a territory, such as Kosovo, might be, there is no doubt in international law that efforts to take over a sovereign state — by force if necessary — are illegal. What this tells us is that if legality was the determinant factor in a territory’s ability to be recognized as a legal political entity, Taiwan’s status would have been resolved years ago. That it hasn’t been demonstrates that the UN’s decision on Kosovo notwithstanding, other variables are more important in determining which nations are able to create their own country and which aren’t.
One crucial element is the power — political, economic and ideational — of the body from which the breakaway entity seeks to exist independently and the level of external support for the would-be “separatist.”
In Kosovo’s case, Serbia was a relatively poor Balkan state with a less than formidable military. Its only patron was Russia, which had yet to get back on its feet less than a decade after the fall of the Soviet Union. As for Kosovars, they managed to secure the backing of the world’s most formidable military, along with the largest military alliance, NATO, when the situation turned violent.
For obvious reasons, the odds facing Taiwan are far more challenging, given China’s might and the lack of international political support for a dream that, however legal, would risk undermining regional, if not global, stability.
As such, while the US and NATO could go to war over Kosovo in 1999 at relatively little cost to them, doing so on Taiwan’s behalf would be far more costly, both in human terms and in the severity of the resulting destabilization.
We should also not forget that Thursday’s decision finds its roots in the blood of tens of thousands of innocent people. While NATO came to Kosovars’ assistance to save them from a campaign of ethnic cleansing orchestrated by former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic and his cronies, it was the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) that first used violence, with the aim of inviting disproportionate retaliation by the Serb military and paramilitary forces against KLA militants and civilians, thus gaining international support.
Some people, now that a mere 11 years later Kosovo is a country, may be tempted to conclude that violence is the key to sovereignty. However, one should not apply the idiosyncratic Kosovo template to a situation like Taiwan. In addition, we should not lose sight of the fact that this sovereignty came with a very heavy human cost and gave birth to a nation that remains riddled by instability and the threat of future conflict.
That Taiwan has a legal case for independence, but almost no chance of seeing that realized, is a grave injustice but a reality. False analogies and violence will not take us any closer to that goal.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
RSS