The government said it refused to issue a visa to Uighur rights advocate Rebiya Kadeer because the World Uyghur Congress (WUC), which Kadeer heads, is connected to East Turkestan “terrorist” organizations. WUC secretary-general Dolkun Isa is even more “dangerous,” as he is allegedly on Interpol’s Red Notice list for immediate arrest. We are told that if he were allowed to enter Taiwan, national interests would be at risk as per the Immigration Act (入出國及移民法).
Opposition politicians lashed out at the government for undermining freedom of expression and movement, as well as the sovereignty issue. The most polite criticism came from Wang Dan (王丹), a dissident who left China after the Tiananmen Square Massacre, when he said he could understand the refusal to issue a visa based on concerns over cross-strait relations, but not based on a connection between Kadeer and terrorism.
It is the government’s responsibility to protect the rights of the nation’s citizens. In addition, human rights are a set of universal values every democracy strives toward. In international politics, however, national interests are often given priority over human rights. Former US president Jimmy Carter has been one of the most active human rights advocates on the international arena in recent years, yet he cannot explain why, on his watch, the US abandoned Taiwan — although admittedly not a democracy at the time — in favor of China, a communist dictatorship.
Nor has the US been able to explain why, when dealing with the Dalai Lama, a universally respected religious leader, its presidents mostly meet the spiritual leader in nonofficial settings. There are constant changes and no consistency. The meeting between US President Barack Obama and the Dalai Lama, originally scheduled for this month, has now been postponed because of concerns over China’s reaction.
The Dalai Lama rejected all invitations to visit Taiwan between 2001 and last year, again over political concerns.
If both the US, the country that is capable of applying the most pressure to promote human rights in the international arena, and the Dalai Lama, who is very particular about human rights, are forced to make such tradeoffs between practical concerns and ideals, it is not surprising that Wang, who lives in exile, can only say helplessly that he understands why the Taiwanese government would refuse to issue a visa to Kadeer.
The tradeoff between human rights and national interests, however, should only be a question of more or less rather than an either-or choice, and the international community should not focus only on practical interests while ignoring human rights. Kadeer and Isa provide two good examples of how this balance can be struck. They are merely working for autonomy and not separation or independence from China, yet they have been labeled independence activists and traitors and framed as terrorists. Beijing has even requested that other countries arrest and extradite them to China and that Interpol provide assistance.
Interpol is not an institution with powers, but merely provides a platform for cooperation between police in different countries, and there are often great differences in how legislation in member countries defines crime.
This means that even if a country requests that a person be put on Interpol’s wanted list, other countries can either assist, or they can ignore the request to protect the dignity and sovereignty of their own laws because the request does not meet the requirements of their domestic legislation.
If a country determines a case to be a matter of political persecution, they can offer political asylum.
Kadeer has received a US green card while Isa has obtained German citizenship, and Isa even attended a forum organized by the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in August, the same month that Taiwan’s Minister of the Interior Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) was calling him a terrorist.
Oddly enough, Jiang insists that Isa, who is enjoying international protection at many levels, has been listed as a terrorist by Interpol. Because Interpol has not published such a list, he says he obtained the classified information from “an ally.”
This sounds odd. Arrest orders for major dangerous criminals are published everywhere to facilitate their arrest. What would be the use of a secret list, one that only allies of the Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration know about? Unless, of course, it is a matter of persecution.
Without missing a beat, Jiang shamelessly claimed that Beijing’s arrest order was internationally recognized by Russia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. This is not a pretty list. It is a list of Chinese allies with bad human rights records. It is a rare occasion to see the Taiwanese government turn its back on liberty on a human rights issue and instead place itself on the side of authoritarian states. Jiang should tell us which of those countries are our allies.
The Ma administration’s explanations are a series of lies. These lies have undermined human rights, the spirit of freedom, the rule by law and the sovereignty of Taiwan. Taiwan is about to become the running dog of China’s anti-human rights camp.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
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
RSS