On May 9, the UN General Assembly elected members from 47 nations to oversee the Human Rights Council. The newly created council replaced the Human Rights Commission, and its first meeting took place on June 19 in Geneva.
International human rights groups are very concerned about whether the council will be able to carry out its tasks free from political interference or manipulation by states known to be human rights abusers.
Prior to the council elections, incidents involving certain countries opposed to seeing rights abusers on the council underscored what a political hot potato the new body is. While the US announced it would boycott the council elections, Human Rights Watch criticized the General Assembly's move to elect China, Cuba, Russia, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia and Iran to the council.
The US believed that the membership criteria for the council were too lax and failed to screen out rights abusers, since the backing of only half of the 191 UN member states is needed to join the council. The US wanted to raise the bar by requiring council applicants to win the support of two-thirds of the UN's membership.
It was truly a pity that other UN members ignored the US' recommendation. The result was that 22 of the 47 countries elected to the council are listed by Freedom House as "not free" or "partly free" nations.
Among the "not free" are China, Algeria, Tunisia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Cameroon and Cuba. "Partly free" members include Morocco, Nigeria, Zambia, Bangladesh, Jordan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Ecuador and Guatemala.
So close to one-half of the council members are regarded by international human rights groups as rights abusers. Whether the council can carry out its mandate and avoid manipulation or interference by rights-abusing nations will determine its success or failure in the eyes of the international community.
Chen Lung-chu is chairman of the New Century Foundation and director of the Taiwan United Nations Alliance.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS