On Sunday, Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa was defeated in the country’s parliamentary election.
Jansa’s loss was largely welcomed by the Western media, which had called him an autocratic populist, and reported on Slovenia’s slide to the right and a sharp decline in democratic standards during his two-year leadership, an assessment backed up by reports from Freedom House and Amnesty International.
Taiwan’s response was always going to be more nuanced. In January, Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Joanne Ou (歐江安) had called Jansa “a good friend of Taiwan” for his government’s plan to establish a representative office in Taiwan, and for his remarks that he supported Taiwan’s entry into the WHO and that Taiwanese should have the right to determine their future, without any pressure, military intervention or blackmailing from China.
Jansa had also criticized Beijing’s “ridiculous” response to Lithuania’s decision to open a representative office in Vilnius using the name Taiwan and called on the EU to stand by Lithuania in the dispute.
Taipei’s closeness to a political figure regarded as an autocrat could be regarded as a vulnerability, especially as President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has been working hard to build Taiwan’s soft power through its democratic, open and progressive values, and to differentiate the nation from China under the autocratic Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime.
Despite comments about Jansa’s admiration for Viktor Orban, the autocratic prime minister of Hungary, his support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression and for Taiwan threatened by the CCP shows that he has been more supportive of democratic values than the final two years of his administration might suggest.
Jansa has also been regarded as anti-EU: He has criticized certain EU countries for placing economics over values in their dealings with the CCP, and in May last year, prior to Slovenia taking the reins of the EU’s rotating presidency, he wrote on Twitter: “We owe the EU nothing. We fought for our freedom and democracy 30 years ago.”
This perhaps spoke not of resentment for the EU, but of pride in his country’s struggle for democratization and independence from Yugoslavia three decades ago, and of the part he personally played in the process.
This might account for Jansa’s distaste for communist autocrats and his sense of empathy toward Taiwan: The parallels between, and timing of, Slovenia’s democratization and that of Taiwan’s is striking.
In the immediate post-World War II period, Slovenia became part of a larger federation, Yugoslavia, and went through a period of gradual liberalization after the 1980 death of Yugoslav “president for life” Josip Broz Tito until the movement for democratization and independence gained ground in 1987 with public anger over the “Trial Against the Four” — in which Jansa himself was a defendant — which precipitated the so-called Slovenian Spring.
The country held its first democratic election in 1990 and became independent in 1991, when the Yugoslav army was sent in. The Slovenians won that struggle, against all odds.
Soon after this, in the 1990s, Jansa facilitated the establishment of the Slovenian-Taiwanese Friendship Association in the Slovenian parliament.
On Tuesday, Department of European Affairs Director-General Remus Chen (陳立國) refused to be cornered on whether Jansa’s departure could jeopardize the plan to open a trade office.
Jansa has been a good friend to Taiwan, yet the goodwill from Slovenia comes also from the similarities not just in the two nations’ values, but also their recent histories. There is no reason the ministry cannot continue to work with the new administration under Robert Golob’s Freedom Movement.
With escalating US-China competition and mutual distrust, the trend of supply chain “friend shoring” in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fragmentation of the world into rival geopolitical blocs, many analysts and policymakers worry the world is retreating into a new cold war — a world of trade bifurcation, protectionism and deglobalization. The world is in a new cold war, said Robin Niblett, former director of the London-based think tank Chatham House. Niblett said he sees the US and China slowly reaching a modus vivendi, but it might take time. The two great powers appear to be “reversing carefully
As China steps up a campaign to diplomatically isolate and squeeze Taiwan, it has become more imperative than ever that Taipei play a greater role internationally with the support of the democratic world. To help safeguard its autonomous status, Taiwan needs to go beyond bolstering its defenses with weapons like anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles. With the help of its international backers, it must also expand its diplomatic footprint globally. But are Taiwan’s foreign friends willing to translate their rhetoric into action by helping Taipei carve out more international space for itself? Beating back China’s effort to turn Taiwan into an international pariah
Typhoon Krathon made landfall in southwestern Taiwan last week, bringing strong winds, heavy rain and flooding, cutting power to more than 170,000 homes and water supply to more than 400,000 homes, and leading to more than 600 injuries and four deaths. Due to the typhoon, schools and offices across the nation were ordered to close for two to four days, stirring up familiar controversies over whether local governments’ decisions to call typhoon days were appropriate. The typhoon’s center made landfall in Kaohsiung’s Siaogang District (小港) at noon on Thursday, but it weakened into a tropical depression early on Friday, and its structure
Taiwan is facing multiple economic challenges due to internal and external pressures. Internal challenges include energy transition, upgrading industries, a declining birthrate and an aging population. External challenges are technology competition between the US and China, international supply chain restructuring and global economic uncertainty. All of these issues complicate Taiwan’s economic situation. Taiwan’s reliance on fossil fuel imports not only threatens the stability of energy supply, but also goes against the global trend of carbon reduction. The government should continue to promote renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, as well as energy storage technology, to diversify energy supply. It