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
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS