Transnistria is a de facto state with boundaries that ripple along the better part of Moldova’s eastern border with Ukraine. It was founded by Soviet loyalists who feared that their Moldavian Socialist Republic would merge with Romania in the event of a breakup with the Soviet Union. Linguistic concerns over the future of the Cyrillic script and Slavic languages in the eastern region motivated a declaration of independence in 1990, with a breakaway government established in Tiraspol. As it turns out, only one of these events came to pass: Moldova did splinter off when the USSR was dissolved but it did not merge with Romania. As the newly-found country of Moldova moved to assert their sovereignty over Tiraspol, the Russian garrison intervened on behalf of the Transnistrian cause and froze the conflict in 1992. Transnistria remains an unrecognized, de facto breakaway state all these years later.
With its ambiguous boundaries and hammers and sickles and towering Lenin statues, Transnistria evokes a land of incomprehensible time and place. It could be Annexia from William Burroughs’ Naked Lunch, but a legal state it is not. That is because Transnistria rests wholly within Moldova’s internationally recognized borders. Moldova has every legal right to assert its sovereignty over Transnistrian territory, including by force. Blocking this option, however, is Moscow’s continued military support for the separatists, guaranteeing a civil war should Moldova attempt to reincorporate the territory. Transnistria thus persists as a de facto state without de jure legitimacy.1
This Russian support is, of course, illegal under international law, with Article 2, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter stating: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” But we need not invoke Russia to understand that this is a “might makes right” world; the United States has proved it again and again and again.
The Island Formerly Known as Formosa
This brings up the continued existence of the Republic of China, better known as Taiwan. Taiwan rests wholly within the internationally recognized borders of the People’s Republic of China, it is a de facto state without de jure recognition and it has been propped up by the illegal intervention of an outside power for decades. Legally speaking, China is analogous to Moldova, Taiwan is Transnistria and the United States plays the role of Russia.
Taiwan was annexed by China during the Qing dynasty over 340 years ago in 1684, after decades of Han migration and brief occupations by Spanish and Dutch colonialists. The encroachment of European powers had flagged the geopolitical importance of this island, situated prominently 100 miles from China’s east coast. As is so often the case throughout history, indigenous people found themselves in the middle of a greater power game and they experienced violent battles against Europeans and Chinese alike, ultimately leading to severe cultural erosion over time.
Two centuries after Taiwan had become a part of China, a nascent Japanese Empire turned its military might on both Korea and China. Taiwan was the first Chinese territory to fall into Tokyo’s hands after Imperial Japan decisively defeated Qing forces in the First Sino-Japanese War of 1895. When the Japanese were finally defeated by allied forces at the conclusion of World War II, their local authorities formally handed the island over to the Republic of China led by Chiang Kai-shek.
Taiwan was henceforth officially recognized as Chinese territory by the United States and other western nations. Although a civil war continued on China’s mainland, US President Harry Truman indicated that he would not intervene in the fight between Mao and Chiang’s armies.
Illegal Interference
Truman changed his mind shortly after the outbreak of the Korean War, suddenly wary of expanding Soviet influence in the region. Truman sent the Seventh Fleet to the Taiwan Strait, preventing any attempt to take the island by the newly-formed People’s Republic of China. Mao, in turn, ordered soldiers over the Korean border and pushed the American-led coalition back to the original demarcation line between the two Koreas.
The tension between the US and PRC led to a curious situation whereby Chiang Kai-shek’s Republic of China in Taipei became recognized as the sole representative of China by Washington and many other western governments. Taipei even represented China at the United Nations and held China’s permanent seat on the Security Council. At this time, the PRC was the de facto government of the entirety of China, minus Hong Kong and Taiwan.
Even though very little Chinese territory was under ROC control, Washington used diplomatic pressure to create competition between Beijing and Taipei for de jure international recognition. Taking Taiwan by force was not an option for the PRC, as Chiang Kai-shek’s military dictatorship was protected by American nuclear weapons deployed to the island, in addition to naval and air force installations guarding the strait.
If it was not for the Russian military, there would be no Transnistria. Likewise, if it was not for the American military, there would be no Republic of China. Taiwan would have been brought under Beijing’s de facto administration long ago. This is important to keep in mind considering that the People’s Republic gained unambiguous global de jure legitimacy in the 1970s after Nixon’s visit to China.
This legitimacy was demonstrated by the expulsion of the ROC from the United Nations and the accession of Beijing to the seat representing mainland China plus Taiwan. UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 recognized “that the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations and that the People’s Republic of China is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council.”
While a dozen tiny states recognize the ROC—like Tuvalu, Saint Lucia and Eswatini—the PRC’s “One China” principle is supported by 142 countries and is expressly acknowledged by 182 in total. The UN seat representing Taiwan passed from Taipei to Beijing many decades ago. If the issue appears unsettled, it is because Washington continues to incorporate the Chinese territory of Taiwan into its regional security architecture designed to contain China. The US sells arms to Taiwan and offers them military protection in flagrant violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
Taiwan is the central node of the American “first island chain” of forward-deployed military bases in Asia prepared to attack China’s eastern coast at a moment’s notice. Without this strategic partnership with Taiwan’s de facto autonomous government, the first island chain is broken and blue water access to Chinese ships can no longer be denied.
Double Standards
If Taiwan was to gain legal statehood, the path does not run through Washington or any other third party. It runs through Beijing and a formal diplomatic settlement. Ireland gained its independence after fighting a war that forced an agreement from London. The same thing happened when South Sudan negotiated a secession procedure with Khartoum. Kosovo gained independence after experiencing a genocide of its population, and representatives from both Serbia and Kosovo agreed to take the question of Kosovar autonomy to the International Court of Justice.
The common thread here is mutual agreement between the concerned parties—something that has never been attempted by Taipei. Enabled by American protection, the ROC has simply never felt compelled to negotiate. Without a formal settlement, Beijing retains the legal right to assert its sovereignty over the island—just as Washington asserted itself over the Confederate States and Madrid asserted itself over Catalonia.
The Lowy Institute is a centre-right think tank from Australia that weighed in on this issue in 2021:
Other countries cannot have cake and eat it too: deny Taiwan is a state, but defend it as if it were. In a world with a plurality of different political systems, states are not permitted to use force simply to protect democracy or “freedom” abroad. The US backed Taiwan even when it was a military dictatorship until the 1990s; its defence has never really been about freedom.
Further, every state has a sovereign right to maintain authority over its own territory and people, including by forcibly suppressing separatism. If Taiwan is Chinese territory, China has a right to take it back and restore Chinese sovereignty—just as the US did in its own civil war. Western interference in China’s internal affairs to assist Taiwan would be an illegal use of force against China and criminal aggression. Current US arms sales to Taiwan would also be illegal force and prohibited intervention against China—just like Russia funnelling weapons to separatists in Ukraine.2
For the American foreign policy establishment, the clear preference is to maintain the illegal status quo that facilitates US dominance over Asia. Peaceful reunification has even been described as a “worst case scenario” for American hegemony—a punishing war is preferable because it would at least diminish Beijing in the process. After Gaza, nobody should be surprised by the appalling disregard for human life demonstrated by the western ruling class.
Building an actual rules-based order will not be accomplished by fighting Moscow whenever it behaves like Washington. That sort of cynical one-sidedness is what perpetuates the cycle of lawlessness. Recognizing Taiwan as a province of China is not about the PRC; it is about the rules-based order that the West already claims to uphold.
Thanks for reading!
It should be noted that de jure recognition can be gained through mutually-agreed upon secession procedures between the concerned parties; civil wars resulting in a peace agreement; appeals to the International Court of Justice in order to validate the existing autonomy of the aspiring secessionist party. ↩︎
Ben Saul, “Would a war over Taiwan be legal?” Lowy Institute, October 14, 2021. ↩︎
