Human Rights Day was Dec. 10 and this year it also marked the 30th anniversary of the 1979 Kaohsiung Incident.
Some media commentators lamented the fact that many Taiwanese fail to recognize the importance of this key event in the history of human rights in Taiwan, or have forgotten about it entirely. At the same time, while two international human rights covenants — the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights — have just come into effect in Taiwan, this significant event seems to have been overshadowed by clashes over the Jingmei Human Rights and Cultural Park. What role should the human rights that those in government are promising really play in today’s Taiwan?
If human rights are really to become a deep-rooted part of Taiwan’s culture, the government needs to set an example by putting those rights into practice, and this must be part of the government’s policies and day-to-day work. Otherwise, government officials’ gestures will be seen as a means of stalling the country’s search for historical truth and genuine reconciliation, instead imposing a certain historical mindset.
In that case, the apologies that are made year after year will contribute nothing to making human rights a reality and establishing them as part of our culture. Instead, rights will become no more than moral baubles, an easy substitute for making substantial change. Human rights will gradually become ineffective and people will become numb to the whole concept, or even find it repellent.
In order for human rights to become truly embedded in a country’s society and culture, the change has to start with checks on government power. In reality, however, the government’s review of existing laws in relation to the two covenants avoids important issues, while dwelling on the trivial, as does its list of more than 200 flaws in existing legislation.
It is a typical example of policy under President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government. One has to worry how determined this government really is to put human rights into effect.
The Presidential Office has announced that it intends to establish a human rights advisory committee, but in the meantime the government seems to have completely forgotten about the need to review the security measures it took during last year’s meeting between Straits Exchange Foundation Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and his Chinese counterpart, Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) — measures that severely restricted basic human rights protected by the two covenants.
The government appears unwilling to explain what consideration is being given to human rights as it implements security measures for the Chiang-Chen talks in Taichung this week.
The first test of a country’s human rights is its government’s treatment of its own people. When a government fails to take basic human rights as its starting point when dealing with the expression of dissident opinion and with demonstrations, then however many reviews it carries out of existing laws and whatever it does to educate the public about human rights, the gestures are laughable.
Who can have faith in a government that, in its negotiations with China, brushes aside proposals for human rights protection clauses in accords and fails to make the details of negotiations public, thereby denying the legislature’s right to oversight?
If the government doesn’t even care about simple rights such as these, the human rights it talks about are in danger of being traded away by politicians in their under-the-table deals.
Liu Ching-yi is associate professor of law in the Graduate Institute of National Development at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath