One rule for Kosovo, one for Taiwan

Thursday, Feb 21, 2008, Page 8

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.

German film offers insight for Taiwanese
　

By Jerome Keating
Thursday, Feb 21, 2008, Page 8

Florian Henckel Von Donners-marck's film The Lives of Others won an Oscar for best foreign language film of 2006 and recently picked up a British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) award for best non-English language film.

While the film takes place in East Berlin, it resonates soundly in Taiwan because it provides a strong, sobering insight into what life was like under a totalitarian regime.

The regime was the German Democratic Republic, but the lack of human rights, lack of press freedom and the constant surveillance by an elaborate system of spies and informants could apply to any one-party state dictatorship, including Taiwan during the years of the Chiang dictatorship and its Taiwan Garrison Command.

Visiting the former East Germany today, it is hard to imagine the brutal and fear-infested atmosphere that existed when it was under communist rule.

Similarly, visitors to Taiwan today will find it hard to imagine the fear and suspicion that existed here some 20 years ago under martial law.

This contrast is what drives the film and makes it all the more poignant.

In the film a Stasi agent, Gerd Wiesler, is directed by his chief and former classmate Anton Grubitz to find evidence that could convict a popular playwright and director Georg Dreyman of disloyalty to the state.

Grubitz's motivation comes more from the desire for promotion and power than any real ideological conviction.

As for true ideological conviction, certainly the rare combination of personal honesty, support of the regime and intelligence are hard to find in any one-party state dictatorship.

One commentator suggests it is possible to combine two of the above in such a state, but not all three. In the film, Wiesler tries to combine all three but suffers as a result.

To see how this plays out, and how the lives of others are affected and destroyed by the Stasi's methods, you must see the film.

At the height of its Cold War power, the Stasi had more 100,000 employees, more 200,000 informants and files on more than 6 million people. The extent of its abuse of citizens' rights and its spying network only became evident after the Berlin Wall fell in November 1989 and East Berliners took control of the Stasi headquarters in January 1990 to prevent Stasi personnel from destroying the records.

Parallels abound between the once one-party state of East Germany and its methods of control and those of Taiwan. In both, the existence of that rare combination of personal honesty, support of the regime and intelligence was hard to find.

However, Taiwan, which has now achieved its own democracy, suffers as a result of one glaring difference: The Stasi were prevented from destroying most of the damning evidence against it. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), however, has had more than 20 years to sanitize its Martial Law era record.

Even now the party still blocks any accounting of its stolen assets and past crimes.

As the film ends, Dreyman has managed to survive because Wiesler withheld some damning evidence against him. Dreyman meets Hempf, a profiteering former minister turned successful businessman.

Hempf -- as if in justification for his continued wealth and position -- says to him: "Our former little republic [East Germany] wasn't all that bad, was it?"

Dreyman answers: "To think, people like you once ruled our country."

In Taiwan, people like Hempf not only still rule, but aspire to higher office.

Jerome Keating is a Taiwan-based writer.