What a test of liberal -- or, given that this is a term of abuse in the US, "democratic" -- values the Falun Gong presents. We don't, of course, refer to the behavior of China domestically which is, as usual, disgusting -- some 77 adherents of the sect have died in police custody or jail as of last December according to Amnesty International. Yet China, as usual, goes largely uncensured, an honorable exception being US Secretary of State Colin Powell's criticism of China's suppression of civil liberties on Jan. 25, and the US' attempt to seek censure of China last April at the UN Human Rights meeting in Geneva.
China's flouting of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which it signed in October 1998, prompts a generally supine international response, which is as unsurprising as its continuous violation of article 36 of its own Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religious belief.
What is interesting now is that Jiang Zemin's (
Just as interesting from our point of view is how many people who should know better seem to be willing to mouth Beijing's "dangerous cult" line on the sect. Some of our readers have pointed out that the sect's founder Li Hongzhi
But none of this justifies China's behavior. Some mainstream sects of Christianity have a strong apocalyptic streak but nobody suggest that justifies their persecution. Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, is considered a charlatan by almost every other Christian denomination, but nobody suggests a crusade against Mormonism -- at least not nowadays.
The point is that states do not have the right to proscribe certain beliefs and we cannot let them get away with trying to do so. "All that is necessary for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing" said Burke. And one of the major reasons for doing nothing is an inability to distinguish between an unattractive creed and the right to profess it. Until Li's followers are shown to be sociopathic lunatics, we not only owe it to them to champion their rights, we owe it to ourselves.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath