What Transnistria can learn from Taiwan's experience

Around the world, states with limited international recognition are spearheading one of the most powerful and enduring political movements of the twentieth century: The pursuit of democracy's basic tenet, self-determination.

Transnistria (officially PMR, the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica) is one of those states, and can learn from the experiences - both good and bad - of Taiwan.

Like Transnistria, Taiwan too faces an uphill battle in its struggle for nation-building and formal entrance into the world community as an independent sovereign nation. Learning from the mistakes of Taiwan, new and emerging Transnistria will be able to map out a quicker road to internationally recognized independence.

For an understanding of Taiwan, a look back at history is required. Originally, Taiwan was part of China. But the Qing Dynasty China ceded Taiwan to Japan in 1895. After the Qing, the Republic of China (ROC) was founded in 1912, and specifically did not include Taiwan - which had already been declared part of Japan nearly twenty year before. Taiwan stayed Japanese until World War II, when the United States attacked Taiwan and the main islands of Japan. When World War II ended, US General MacArthur directed its Chinese ally - Chiang Kai-shek, of the Republic of China - to go to Taiwan and accept the surrender of the Japanese troops stationed there. In legal terms, MacArthur's order created an agency arrangement for the military occupation of Taiwan: The United States being the principal occupying power, with Chiang Kai-shek acting as a subordinate power.

Chiang Kai-shek soon found himself fighting another battle, this time against Chairman Mao. After losing this civil war on the mainland, in 1949 high ranking nationalist officials of Chiang Kai-shek's Republic of China fled to Taiwan - which they already occupied - and established a Chinese government in exile. In 1952, Japan renounced its claim to Taiwan without specifying a "receiving country."

The Republic of China continued as a founding member of the United Nations, but now based on its status as a government in exile and the "legal government of China," rather than its de facto status of the government of Taiwan. Formally, neither the United Nations nor World War II Allies recognized a transfer of the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan to the ROC at any time during the post-WWII era.

While international law and the United Nations Charter specifically respect the rights of all peoples to self-determination, the experience of Taiwan in trying to enter the United Nations shows otherwise. Today, in fact, many existing members of the UN point to the doctrine of "territorial integrity of states" to deny a would-be new member's application. As of 2006, Taiwan has already been refused admission to the UN for fourteen years in a
row. No comprehensive statement of reasons is given for a denied application.

In the post-war peace treaty, Japan renounced the sovereignty of Taiwan without specifying a receiving country. Under such circumstances, which we may call a "limbo cession," the territory will escheat to the "conqueror" and "principal occupying power" as an interim status condition. In the case of Taiwan, this would be the United States, as specified in Articles 4b and 23a of the peace treaty. Currently underway in Washington D.C. is a court case by which a group of Taiwan nationals seek to clarify this issue and get a legal ruling on statehood issues related to Taiwan's territorial sovereignty.

The Taiwanese people elected a "pro-independence" President in 2000, but little progress has been made toward obtaining full international recognition in the past seven years. Clearly, if the Taiwan experience is to serve as an example for Transnistria and other states on their way to international recognition and integration in the world community, it shows that the specifications of all relevant international treaties, charters, etc. cannot be ignored. All issues of transfer of territorial sovereignty must be carefully and meticulously dealt with, so as to not leave any loose ends as in the Taiwan's case.

Ultimately, the state as a subject of international law is the result of the sovereign will of its people to live in independence, free from outside interference attempting to restrict their democratic right to self-determination. This is true from Taiwan to Transnistria, and no lack of recognition can ever change that. As the world becomes more democratic, new states will be recognized and welcomed into the United Nations. As Taiwan's example shows, this may not happen overnight, and an important lesson lies in the need for clarifying the legal claim to territory and statehood.

Roger C. S. Lin is the Chairman of the Taiwan Civil Action Party. A resident of Gaoxiong, Taiwan, he is also involved in a court case in Washington D.C. seeking to determine the legal status of Taiwan under international law. The case was filed in October 2006 and is currently underway.