The focus of this weekend’s ASEAN summit in Thailand was, as one would expect, the economy. With representatives from six extra countries attending talks — Australia, India, New Zealand, China, Japan and South Korea — all eyes were on the future of Asia’s growing economic strength.
But the summit also brought ASEAN’s human rights body to fruition after years in the making. Considering the poor records of many of ASEAN’s members, that should have been cause for applause. Rights groups both within ASEAN countries and abroad are, however, concerned that the body is little more than show.
The charter for ASEAN’s Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights was signed by member states almost two years ago. While encouraged by human rights organizations and governments outside of ASEAN, the plans soon came under fire.
The process of negotiating and preparing a charter was spearheaded by Singapore, which itself was cause for skepticism. But criticism came to a head when an internal report was leaked indicating that the commission would hopefully stop foreign countries from “attempting to interfere in the human rights issues” of ASEAN countries.
Concerns resurfaced on Friday, the day of the body’s inauguration, when half of ASEAN’s member states blocked human rights activists from their countries from taking part in an ASEAN forum. Singapore was one of these, as was Myanmar.
Human Rights Watch called the body a “joke” and “worthless” for failing to communicate with voices of concern within the member states.
Taiwan has made greater progress in terms of democracy and human rights than most ASEAN states. As in many other countries in Asia, however, its gains are fragile and must be guarded — an imperative that has emerged under the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
As a country aspiring to improve its rights record, Taiwan can assure the members of ASEAN that foreign “interference” — in the form of concern expressed by international human rights organizations and foreign governments regarding human rights violations — can play a positive role in discouraging government abuse of power.
Nor is this the case in Taiwan alone. Foreign pressure has repeatedly helped secure the release of political prisoners in countries like Vietnam and China and in some cases seems to have stopped executions.
In Taiwan, it is likely that international attention, combined with the work of domestic campaigners, has helped push the government toward abolition of the death penalty and improving treatment of prisoners. It may also have helped in infamous criminal trials such as the Hsichih Trio and Hsu Tzu-chiang (徐自強) cases.
There is cause for concern in Taiwan that the human rights situation is eroding — including indications of government pressure on media outlets. For this reason, the concern of well-known, international human rights groups is as welcome as ever.
From this perspective, human rights “meddlers” at international organizations or in foreign governments are often a blessing, helping to amplify voices at home that the government would rather ignore. In the case of ASEAN, however, it seems doubtful that member states are willing to listen.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS