Minister of the Interior Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) said the government would not allow World Uyghur Congress president Rebiya Kadeer to visit Taiwan because her organization is closely associated with a terrorist group. Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) immediately voiced approval of the decision. That’s how easy it was for the government to rid itself of another hot potato.
But is Kadeer really a terrorist? Ten days before the opening of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games last summer, then-US president George W. Bush received a group of five well-known Chinese dissidents, including Wei Jingsheng (魏京生), at the White House. Kadeer was one of them. At the meeting, Bush reiterated his support for the Uighurs’ pursuit of human rights and democracy. Kadeer said Bush’s decision to receive them at that moment was a strong message to the Chinese government that it must stop suppressing human rights.
In a photo later released by the White House, we saw Bush enthusiastically putting his arm on Kadeer’s right shoulder. Bush was a leader of the fight against terrorism. Would the CIA or FBI have let him meet Kadeer if she were linked to a terrorist group? The fact is that the two had already met in Prague in 2007, at which time he praised her in public as a human rights fighter who was not afraid of a tyrannical government.
Jiang’s statement was a reflection of his ignorance and shamelessness. He not only defamed a human rights activist but also embarrassed the Republic of China. Think about it: If Kadeer cannot visit Taiwan, then Wei would most likely be refused as well. Will everyone who is a thorn in the side to Beijing be prohibited from visiting in the future?
Democracy and freedom are Taiwan’s most precious values. Instead of performing a character assassination on Kadeer, Jiang has seriously damaged the nation’s image and dignity.
It is true that political realities force Taiwan to maintain friendly relations with China. Despite the green camp’s accusing Ma of leaning toward China and selling out Taiwan over the past year, his efforts to improve cross-strait relations are basically correct.
Yet one should not maintain a friendship at all costs and one must not act obsequiously. Taiwanese society respects human rights. Kadeer is a human rights activist worthy of respect. Why should we abuse her — and belittle ourselves?
The Ministry of the Interior is just like the Hong Kong government, which prevents Chinese democracy activists from attending the local memorial events for the Tiananmen Square Massacre. Hong Kong’s decision is understandable, as it is a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China. Jiang, however, is denigrating himself. He is an academic-turned-politician who has lost his intellectual conscience. He does not shrink from trampling the nation’s founding spirit in order to curry favor with an authoritarian country.
The point of Taiwanese musician Freddy Lim’s (林昶佐) invitation of Kadeer was clear. Regardless of the purpose, however, anyone capable of serving as premier or minister should have the wisdom to abide by certain fundamental principles. This invitation was a test.
What would happen if Kadeer came? I don’t believe Jiang is afraid that Kadeer plans to set up an al-Qaeda cell in Taiwan. He is afraid of upsetting Beijing. But cross-strait reconciliation is in full swing: Would the Chinese Communist Party really freeze this process because of Kadeer?
The government should stop and think: What happened to Taiwan’s national dignity?
Huang Juei-min is a law professor at Providence University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of