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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS