News about the creation of a new country or a declaration of independence is guaranteed to grab attention here, given Taiwan's unique international status, and more often than not spark passionate discussion among those who believe Taiwan should do the same.
This was the case on Sunday when Kosovo announced its independence from Serbia, attempting to follow in the footsteps of East Timor and Montenegro to become the third country born this century.
Time will tell if Kosovo can succeed, as it remains wracked with many problems, including an unemployment rate that hovers around 50 percent, a hostile neighbor and a fiercely anti-independence Serb minority. But with the support of major powers such as the US and several large European nations on hand, the tiny land stands a better chance of success than most.
The fact that nations such as the US and the UK are willing to recognize Kosovo in the face of fierce opposition from Russia and China must be particularly galling for Taiwan's independence supporters, but apart from a few obvious parallels that can be drawn, the similarities between Kosovo and Taiwan end there.
The main difference is that an overwhelming majority of the population in Kosovo -- the 90 percent who are ethnic Albanians -- support independence, while in Taiwan support for independence remains to the side of mainstream public opinion and is even divided among ethnic groups.
Add to this the fact that no other country -- bar the handful of small Latin American, African and Pacific states that make up Taipei's diplomatic allies -- would be willing to support a declaration by Taipei. As such, Pristina's bold move should not raise the hopes of too many independence supporters.
Indeed, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and several European foreign ministers have been quick to point out that the hasty recognition afforded Kosovo should not be taken as "a precedent for separatist states elsewhere," comments that have been interpreted as a warning to Taiwan, among others.
Rice cited the ethnic cleansing and "crimes against civilians" that took part during the breakup of the former Yugoslavia as proof of Kosovo's unique status.
The problem for Taiwan is that it experienced a form of ethnic cleansing -- the 228 Incident and White Terror ethnic discrimination -- at a time when such events were better hidden from the scrutiny of the world press. Add to that the geopolitical situation in the region, which meant that any support for a nascent independence movement was ignored.
Without strong support, any such move would be dead in the water, so the best Taipei can hope for in the meantime is another addition to the ranks of countries willing to recognize Taipei. In fact, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has already made overtures to that effect.
Given China's opposition to Kosovo's move and its unwillingness to recognize its independence, it would seem like an ideal opportunity to forge ties with another country that shares ideals with Taiwan. But even that small hope could soon be dashed.
The problem is that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon must now decide whether to hand complete control of Kosovo over to NATO, a decision that can only be made by the UN Security Council -- where China and Russia have veto powers.
Until that decision is made, Kosovo remains in the hands of UN peacekeepers and at the mercy of China, meaning that in all likelihood Taiwan will end up empty-handed and independence-minded Taiwanese will once again have to sit on the sidelines jealously watching a newly formed nation celebrate its freedom.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
On Monday last week, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Raymond Greene met with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers to discuss Taiwan-US defense cooperation, on the heels of a separate meeting the previous week with Minister of National Defense Minister Wellington Koo (顧立雄). Departing from the usual convention of not advertising interactions with senior national security officials, the AIT posted photos of both meetings on Facebook, seemingly putting the ruling and opposition parties on public notice to obtain bipartisan support for Taiwan’s defense budget and other initiatives. Over the past year, increasing Taiwan’s defense budget has been a sore spot
Media said that several pan-blue figures — among them former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), former KMT legislator Lee De-wei (李德維), former KMT Central Committee member Vincent Hsu (徐正文), New Party Chairman Wu Cheng-tien (吳成典), former New Party legislator Chou chuan (周荃) and New Party Deputy Secretary-General You Chih-pin (游智彬) — yesterday attended the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) military parade commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. China’s Xinhua news agency reported that foreign leaders were present alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) is expected to be summoned by the Taipei City Police Department after a rally in Taipei on Saturday last week resulted in injuries to eight police officers. The Ministry of the Interior on Sunday said that police had collected evidence of obstruction of public officials and coercion by an estimated 1,000 “disorderly” demonstrators. The rally — led by Huang to mark one year since a raid by Taipei prosecutors on then-TPP chairman and former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — might have contravened the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), as the organizers had