For all the allegations of sleaze that stalk the levels of power in Taiwan -- as with any country in the world -- I for one would like to congratulate the successive democratic governments of Taiwan and its hard-working people for doing their best to live by the requirements of international law.
Though it is shunned by most international organizations, Taiwan still attempts to abide by the laws created by everyone else. I refer to its commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the numerous times it has extended the "olive branch" of peace to its neighbor, China.
This is of course is in accordance with the preamble of the charter of the UN, concerning states living together in "peace" and as "good neighbors."
Though history will hopefully congratulate Taiwan for its lightning-quick democratic reforms and its commitment to peaceful relations with its neighbors, I can't help but think that at the present time at least, it is also having a detrimental effect.
Of course Taiwan should fully commit itself to the principles of the so-called civilized world, at the very least just for the peace of mind. That's not the problem. The problem is that for all the international community's rhetoric about condemning terrorism, despotic regimes and human rights abuses, the very people it usually seems to make concessions to are those that break the rule of law.
One only has to look at the make-up of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, to see that we are in serious trouble. We have one of the only remaining imperial powers of the world, China, which regularly violates human rights laws. Next to that we have Russia, which last year was the only country to have its democratic ranking on the Freedom House index go down a notch, from "partly free" to "not free."
For many years Taiwan has tried to join the UN, that big, happy, global family. Why, one might ask? Who in their right mind wants to be associated with an organization that votes for Libya to chair the human rights commission? An organization that issued a release rebuking the US for labeling the atrocities in the Darfur region as "genocide?"
One might see this rebuke as symbolic of the UN's fear of actually having to act collectively against a rule-breaker. Of course Taiwan might be accepted if it was prepared to blow up and kill innocent civilians. The general assembly was quite happy to give Yasser Arafat -- a man responsible for much bloodshed and death -- and the Palestine Liberation Organization permanent observer status at the UN. Meanwhile the great man of peace, the Dalai Lama, and Tibet, have long been forgotten.
Why does the international community tolerate, even encourage the long list of despots, brutal terrorists and law breakers out there in the world today? Is it the mistaken belief that appeasement might work? Is it trade? So much money flows in and out of China, that the EU is seriously considering lifting the arms embargo on China for fear of labeling it in the same category as regimes such as Myanmar and Zimbabwe.
What's wrong with placing China in the same league as these other brutal regimes? One of the most respected organizations in the world, the Freedom House Association, does exactly that, while Amnesty International regularly condemns the Chinese government for carrying out human rights abuses.
So there it is, Taiwan. If you really want international recognition, the process is simple. Simply engage in unlawful and violent practices and the world will be all ears. Of course the largely peace-loving Taiwanese would not do such a thing and to the people of Formosa I would say keep on following the rules of international law, as one day future generations will thank you for it.
To the international community, I put this question to you: What type of a world would you like to pass on to your children? Would you like a world full of Arafats, bin Ladens and Mugabes, or a world full of Mandelas, Dalai Lamas and Yushchenkos? The ball's in your court. I know which one the Taiwanese and I would both prefer.
Adam Coates
United Kingdom
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