President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has a way with words. In signing into law the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on Thursday, Ma said that “the government is committed to protecting human rights, and it is not lip service but real action. I now declare to the world that Taiwan’s protection of human rights will be on the same track as the international community and at the same pace.”
There is reason to be skeptical about Ma’s ability to implement meaningful change after conducting a review of laws and procedures. The main obstacle is a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-dominated legislature that does not share Ma’s soft spot for international admiration. The KMT caucus — no tool of the president — is unlikely to amend laws in ways that reduce the influence of legislators or the KMT, particularly the party’s ability to manipulate the judiciary and electoral processes.
A good number of the covenants’ articles cover ground that is compatible with Taiwanese law and administrative practice. But there are a number of articles that could cause the KMT government concern even after it attempts to spruce up the books.
Most important is ICCPR Article 1(1), which states “All peoples have the right of self-determination” and shall “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
The KMT government has yet to declare what a political deal with China will entail. By signing this article into law, any action taken by the government that deprives Taiwanese of self-determination will be rendered illegal. It is hard to see many — perhaps a majority — of KMT legislators accepting this.
Another timely example is Article 14(3b), which mandates that a criminal suspect has “adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defense and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing.” There is much room for legal debate over the meaning of “adequate” in this article, but by any reasonable measure, the detention of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) by the Taipei District Court at the Taipei Detention Center, whose punitive retaliation over his latest hunger strike is worthy of Myanmar’s junta, could be declared illegal on this basis.
Article 22, which deals with freedom of association, would appear to render illegal the state’s opposition to labor unions for schoolteachers.
There are many other examples of possible grounds for legal action by Taiwanese and foreign nationals whose rights have been expanded by the signing into law of the covenants.
Dealing with these issues will require of the president an even hand and the ability to stare down hardliners in his party. On this score, Ma’s track record is unenviable. At times he can be conciliatory to his opponents, but his character and the fundamental nature of the KMT are such that, when he was party chairman, sustained pressure from hardliners compelled him to relent each and every time. As president, with more power at his disposal and — perhaps — growing confidence in his role, this might change. We can only hope.
Legal reforms in matters involving human rights require more than power politics; they require leadership that generates broad support in the electorate and bipartisan cooperation in the legislature. To create such an environment in the present context, in which populism is slowly gaining the upper hand over due process, would amount to a minor miracle.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS