The focus of this weekend’s ASEAN summit in Thailand was, as one would expect, the economy. With representatives from six extra countries attending talks — Australia, India, New Zealand, China, Japan and South Korea — all eyes were on the future of Asia’s growing economic strength.
But the summit also brought ASEAN’s human rights body to fruition after years in the making. Considering the poor records of many of ASEAN’s members, that should have been cause for applause. Rights groups both within ASEAN countries and abroad are, however, concerned that the body is little more than show.
The charter for ASEAN’s Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights was signed by member states almost two years ago. While encouraged by human rights organizations and governments outside of ASEAN, the plans soon came under fire.
The process of negotiating and preparing a charter was spearheaded by Singapore, which itself was cause for skepticism. But criticism came to a head when an internal report was leaked indicating that the commission would hopefully stop foreign countries from “attempting to interfere in the human rights issues” of ASEAN countries.
Concerns resurfaced on Friday, the day of the body’s inauguration, when half of ASEAN’s member states blocked human rights activists from their countries from taking part in an ASEAN forum. Singapore was one of these, as was Myanmar.
Human Rights Watch called the body a “joke” and “worthless” for failing to communicate with voices of concern within the member states.
Taiwan has made greater progress in terms of democracy and human rights than most ASEAN states. As in many other countries in Asia, however, its gains are fragile and must be guarded — an imperative that has emerged under the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
As a country aspiring to improve its rights record, Taiwan can assure the members of ASEAN that foreign “interference” — in the form of concern expressed by international human rights organizations and foreign governments regarding human rights violations — can play a positive role in discouraging government abuse of power.
Nor is this the case in Taiwan alone. Foreign pressure has repeatedly helped secure the release of political prisoners in countries like Vietnam and China and in some cases seems to have stopped executions.
In Taiwan, it is likely that international attention, combined with the work of domestic campaigners, has helped push the government toward abolition of the death penalty and improving treatment of prisoners. It may also have helped in infamous criminal trials such as the Hsichih Trio and Hsu Tzu-chiang (徐自強) cases.
There is cause for concern in Taiwan that the human rights situation is eroding — including indications of government pressure on media outlets. For this reason, the concern of well-known, international human rights groups is as welcome as ever.
From this perspective, human rights “meddlers” at international organizations or in foreign governments are often a blessing, helping to amplify voices at home that the government would rather ignore. In the case of ASEAN, however, it seems doubtful that member states are willing to listen.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
RSS