Soon after Beijing made its successful bid to host the Olympic Games, human rights organizations, academics and some publications intensified their scrutiny of the manner in which the Chinese state apparatus was dealing with dissent, media freedoms and human rights in general.
But while this happened, governments did not follow suit and failed to voice official objections to the fact that Beijing has broken most of its promises.
Just last week, reports that Beijing was requesting that Chinese nationals who obtained tickets for the opening and closing ceremonies submit personal information and a recent photograph -- developments that should have raised eyebrows in world capitals -- passed with little comment.
Under the pretense that the scheme would "eradicate fake tickets [and] control speculative ticket reselling," what Beijing is doing is collecting background data on everybody who will be at the Olympic venue at a time when the world's media will be looking its way. Anyone whom the security apparatus suspects could create "image problems" of the type that were seen at Tiananmen Square in 1989 will be screened out beforehand and be unable to attend the "celebrations."
In a way, this new scheme is just an extension of Beijing's police-state-like preparations for the games, in which foreign "allies" -- which for months have provided it with lists of people and organizations that may cause "trouble" should they participate at the Olympics -- have been complicit.
Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that states -- especially Western democracies that, on paper at least, would be expected to behave more responsibly than China -- seem to find it increasingly difficult to openly talk about human rights abuses, even among themselves.
A prominent example of this is Canada's decision to rewrite the manual on torture it produces for its diplomats after the US and Israel complained that their countries had been listed among the states that employ such practices. Rather than defend the authors of the report or explain his government's position on the matter, Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Maxime Bernier said the list had "mistakenly" included the two countries and did not represent the official view in Ottawa.
The document -- which was obtained by Amnesty International -- was summarily recast as an embarrassment, at best a mere rag to "stimulate discussion and debate." Its new version, Ottawa promised, will not include Israel and the US. Case closed.
Next thing you know, Beijing, too, will be complaining about its inclusion on the rogues' gallery of torturers or, as Jerusalem and Washington did, it will split hairs and argue that waterboarding and sleep deprivation do not constitute torture.
One by one, in the name of good relations, names will be removed from lists -- those that are made public, at least -- to ensure that no allied government is insulted by the truth.
It is altogether deplorable that in this day and age governments would abandon the human rights discourse -- except for cynical purposes, such as to provide a post facto rationale for the invasion of Iraq, or in the ongoing campaign to isolate Iran.
What this means for all those hapless dissidents or suspects who face torture, unjust imprisonment and other forms of humiliation is that they should no longer place their hopes in governments. Not even the supposedly "good" ones.
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
The diplomatic dispute between China and Japan over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s comments in the Japanese Diet continues to escalate. In a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, China’s UN Ambassador Fu Cong (傅聰) wrote that, “if Japan dares to attempt an armed intervention in the cross-Strait situation, it would be an act of aggression.” There was no indication that Fu was aware of the irony implicit in the complaint. Until this point, Beijing had limited its remonstrations to diplomatic summonses and weaponization of economic levers, such as banning Japanese seafood imports, discouraging Chinese from traveling to Japan or issuing
Since leaving office last year, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has been journeying across continents. Her ability to connect with international audiences and foster goodwill toward her country continues to enhance understanding of Taiwan. It is possible because she can now walk through doors in Europe that are closed to President William Lai (賴清德). Tsai last week gave a speech at the Berlin Freedom Conference, where, standing in front of civil society leaders, human rights advocates and political and business figures, she highlighted Taiwan’s indispensable global role and shared its experience as a model for democratic resilience against cognitive warfare and
The diplomatic spat between China and Japan over comments Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi made on Nov. 7 continues to worsen. Beijing is angry about Takaichi’s remarks that military force used against Taiwan by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) could constitute a “survival-threatening situation” necessitating the involvement of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. Rather than trying to reduce tensions, Beijing is looking to leverage the situation to its advantage in action and rhetoric. On Saturday last week, four armed China Coast Guard vessels sailed around the Japanese-controlled Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台), known to Japan as the Senkakus. On Friday, in what
RSS