The government said it refused to issue a visa to Uighur rights advocate Rebiya Kadeer because the World Uyghur Congress (WUC), which Kadeer heads, is connected to East Turkestan “terrorist” organizations. WUC secretary-general Dolkun Isa is even more “dangerous,” as he is allegedly on Interpol’s Red Notice list for immediate arrest. We are told that if he were allowed to enter Taiwan, national interests would be at risk as per the Immigration Act (入出國及移民法).
Opposition politicians lashed out at the government for undermining freedom of expression and movement, as well as the sovereignty issue. The most polite criticism came from Wang Dan (王丹), a dissident who left China after the Tiananmen Square Massacre, when he said he could understand the refusal to issue a visa based on concerns over cross-strait relations, but not based on a connection between Kadeer and terrorism.
It is the government’s responsibility to protect the rights of the nation’s citizens. In addition, human rights are a set of universal values every democracy strives toward. In international politics, however, national interests are often given priority over human rights. Former US president Jimmy Carter has been one of the most active human rights advocates on the international arena in recent years, yet he cannot explain why, on his watch, the US abandoned Taiwan — although admittedly not a democracy at the time — in favor of China, a communist dictatorship.
Nor has the US been able to explain why, when dealing with the Dalai Lama, a universally respected religious leader, its presidents mostly meet the spiritual leader in nonofficial settings. There are constant changes and no consistency. The meeting between US President Barack Obama and the Dalai Lama, originally scheduled for this month, has now been postponed because of concerns over China’s reaction.
The Dalai Lama rejected all invitations to visit Taiwan between 2001 and last year, again over political concerns.
If both the US, the country that is capable of applying the most pressure to promote human rights in the international arena, and the Dalai Lama, who is very particular about human rights, are forced to make such tradeoffs between practical concerns and ideals, it is not surprising that Wang, who lives in exile, can only say helplessly that he understands why the Taiwanese government would refuse to issue a visa to Kadeer.
The tradeoff between human rights and national interests, however, should only be a question of more or less rather than an either-or choice, and the international community should not focus only on practical interests while ignoring human rights. Kadeer and Isa provide two good examples of how this balance can be struck. They are merely working for autonomy and not separation or independence from China, yet they have been labeled independence activists and traitors and framed as terrorists. Beijing has even requested that other countries arrest and extradite them to China and that Interpol provide assistance.
Interpol is not an institution with powers, but merely provides a platform for cooperation between police in different countries, and there are often great differences in how legislation in member countries defines crime.
This means that even if a country requests that a person be put on Interpol’s wanted list, other countries can either assist, or they can ignore the request to protect the dignity and sovereignty of their own laws because the request does not meet the requirements of their domestic legislation.
If a country determines a case to be a matter of political persecution, they can offer political asylum.
Kadeer has received a US green card while Isa has obtained German citizenship, and Isa even attended a forum organized by the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in August, the same month that Taiwan’s Minister of the Interior Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) was calling him a terrorist.
Oddly enough, Jiang insists that Isa, who is enjoying international protection at many levels, has been listed as a terrorist by Interpol. Because Interpol has not published such a list, he says he obtained the classified information from “an ally.”
This sounds odd. Arrest orders for major dangerous criminals are published everywhere to facilitate their arrest. What would be the use of a secret list, one that only allies of the Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration know about? Unless, of course, it is a matter of persecution.
Without missing a beat, Jiang shamelessly claimed that Beijing’s arrest order was internationally recognized by Russia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. This is not a pretty list. It is a list of Chinese allies with bad human rights records. It is a rare occasion to see the Taiwanese government turn its back on liberty on a human rights issue and instead place itself on the side of authoritarian states. Jiang should tell us which of those countries are our allies.
The Ma administration’s explanations are a series of lies. These lies have undermined human rights, the spirit of freedom, the rule by law and the sovereignty of Taiwan. Taiwan is about to become the running dog of China’s anti-human rights camp.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS