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.
China badly misread Japan. It sought to intimidate Tokyo into silence on Taiwan. Instead, it has achieved the opposite by hardening Japanese resolve. By trying to bludgeon a major power like Japan into accepting its “red lines” — above all on Taiwan — China laid bare the raw coercive logic of compellence now driving its foreign policy toward Asian states. From the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China Seas to the Himalayan frontier, Beijing has increasingly relied on economic warfare, diplomatic intimidation and military pressure to bend neighbors to its will. Confident in its growing power, China appeared to believe
Taiwan-India relations appear to have been put on the back burner this year, including on Taiwan’s side. Geopolitical pressures have compelled both countries to recalibrate their priorities, even as their core security challenges remain unchanged. However, what is striking is the visible decline in the attention India once received from Taiwan. The absence of the annual Diwali celebrations for the Indian community and the lack of a commemoration marking the 30-year anniversary of the representative offices, the India Taipei Association and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center, speak volumes and raise serious questions about whether Taiwan still has a coherent India
Recent media reports have again warned that traditional Chinese medicine pharmacies are disappearing and might vanish altogether within the next 15 years. Yet viewed through the broader lens of social and economic change, the rise and fall — or transformation — of industries is rarely the result of a single factor, nor is it inherently negative. Taiwan itself offers a clear parallel. Once renowned globally for manufacturing, it is now best known for its high-tech industries. Along the way, some businesses successfully transformed, while others disappeared. These shifts, painful as they might be for those directly affected, have not necessarily harmed society
Legislators of the opposition parties, consisting of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), on Friday moved to initiate impeachment proceedings against President William Lai (賴清德). They accused Lai of undermining the nation’s constitutional order and democracy. For anyone who has been paying attention to the actions of the KMT and the TPP in the legislature since they gained a combined majority in February last year, pushing through constitutionally dubious legislation, defunding the Control Yuan and ensuring that the Constitutional Court is unable to operate properly, such an accusation borders the absurd. That they are basing this
RSS