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
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS