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.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS