At the UN General Assembly, it has been referred to as "T," for "The," while within NATO and the EU it is known by its acronym -- FYROM.
Last week, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia won a substantial diplomatic victory when the Canadian government announced it would dispose of silly euphemisms and officially recognize it by the name Macedonia, a name which Greece has vehemently opposed ever since the region gained its independence from Yugoslavia in 1991.
Of course, Athens was not pleased with Ottawa's change of heart and the Greek foreign minister said she would contact her Canadian counterpart to "stress Greece's unwavering position" on the issue, which could possibly include Athens blocking any attempt by Macedonia to join the EU, the UN and NATO under that name.
By now, readers may have realized that the language used by Greece sounds so familiar that it's almost spooky. Substitute Athens for Beijing and Macedonia for Taiwan and you'd think we had left the Balkans for Asia.
Taiwanese could interpret Canada's decision in two ways. They could be disgusted, given the fact that during that same week Ottawa tactlessly prevaricated on issuing a visa to Democratic Progressive Party Chairman Yu Shyi-kun, only to use Typhoon Wipha as an excuse. Also, the UN yet again shot down Taiwan's bid to join the world body. Why, one would rightly ask, can Macedonia -- a country with a population one-twelfth that of Taiwan and, at US$16.96 billion, a GDP one-eightieth that of its Asian counterpart -- gain official recognition, while Taiwan continues to be snubbed?
To not call this unfair would, at best, be an exercise in delusion.
On the other hand we can look at the decision and see it as promising for Taiwan, however remote that glimmer of hope might be. Despite pressure from Macedonia's bigger, stronger neighbor and the fact that Canada and Greece are both NATO members, Ottawa still chose to recognize Macedonia, political fallout notwithstanding.
Truth be told, the damage to Canada's ties with Athens far outweighs the benefits of recognizing Macedonia. It will be interesting to see if, in the coming months, other countries follow suit.
For Taiwan, a decision like the one Ottawa made last week shows that patience and a sustained public relations campaign to sell a nation's struggle for recognition to the international community will, in the long run, bring benefits.
Sixteen years, as was the case with Macedonia, is short compared with Taiwan's nearly 60-year struggle -- and there is still no guarantee that Macedonia will successfully accede to the world bodies anytime soon. But a G8 and UN member now chooses to call it by its proper name.
Macedonia's success didn't come about all on its own, but followed a long charm campaign, accompanied by bullying and intransigence on the part of Athens. Such endeavors, like it or not, cost money.
Which brings us to the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) threat last week to sue the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for spending an estimated NT$100 million (US$3 million) on its UN campaign. Though the exercise failed in its primary objective, it was immensely successful in promoting Taiwan and engendering debate all over the world. Rarely has Taiwan been discussed so extensively in newspapers, from the US to Denmark, or had rallies -- from San Francisco to Vancouver -- held in support of the nation.
To put things in perspective, the DPP's campaign only came at one-fifteenth of the cost of an F-16 aircraft. From a PR point of view, that NT$100 million was a wise investment.
In September 2013, the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) quietly released an internal document entitled, “Coursebook on the Military Geography of the Taiwan Strait.” This sensitive, “military-use-only” coursebook explains why it is strategically vital that China “reunify” (annex) Taiwan. It then methodically analyzes various locations of interest to People’s Liberation Army (PLA) war planners. The coursebook highlights one future battlefield in particular: Fulong Beach, in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District, which it describes as “3,000 meters long, flat, and straight,” and located at “the head of Taiwan.” A black and white picture of Fulong’s sandy coastline occupies the
US President Joe Biden’s first news conference last month offered reassuring and concerning insights regarding his administration’s approach to China. Biden did not mention the contentious meeting in Alaska where US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan confronted China’s top two foreign policy officials. The Americans implicitly affirmed the administration of former US president Donald Trump’s direct pushback against communist China’s repressive domestic governance and aggressive international behavior. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) and Chinese Central Foreign Affairs Commission Director Yang Jiechi (楊潔篪) had explicitly demanded a return to the policies of
Early last month, China’s rubber-stamp legislature, the National People’s Congress (NPC), officially approved the country’s 14th Five-Year Plan. The strategy was supposed to demonstrate that China has a long-term economic vision that would enable it to thrive, despite its geopolitical contest with the US. However, before the ink on the NPC’s stamp could dry, China had already begun sabotaging the plan’s chances of success. The new plan’s centerpiece is the “dual-circulation” strategy, according to which China would aim to foster growth based on domestic demand and technological self-sufficiency. This would not only reduce China’s reliance on external demand; it would also
Interrupting the assimilation of Xinjiang’s Uighur population would result in an unmanageable national security threat to China. Numerous governments and civil society organizations around the world have accused China of massive human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and labeled Beijing’s inhumane and aggressive social re-engineering efforts in the region as “cultural genocide.” Extensive evidence shows that China’s forceful ethnic assimilation policies in Xinjiang are aimed at replacing Uighur ethnic and religious identity with a so-called scientific communist dogma and Han Chinese culture. The total assimilation of Uighurs into the larger “Chinese family” is also Beijing’s official, central purpose of its ethnic policies