I ran into World Uyghur Congress president Rebiya Kadeer by the elevator on my way to attend a hearing on July 19 of the US Congressional Executive Commission on China on conditions in Xinjiang a year after the riots in July last year. We exchanged a few words, and I could sense her warmth and kindness.
She was accompanied by the vice president of the World Uyghur Congress, Omer Kanat, a kind and friendly gentleman who has spent his life working for freedom and human rights for people in East Turkestan or the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region.
These two people live and work in Washington and are considered by the US government and Congress to be respected and reliable sources of information on what is happening in their homeland.
Last year, however, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration blocked Kadeer from visiting Taiwan to promote her movie The Ten Conditions of Love and only last week stalled Kanat’s visa application for so long that he was also unable to visit Taiwan.
Whose side is the Ma administration on? Does it want to promote human rights and democracy around the world — and support freedom-loving people like Kadeer and Kanat — or does it side with the repressive government in Beijing, which is increasingly seen in the international community as a perpetrator of injustice, especially in Tibet and Xinjiang?
While I was listening to the panelists’ comments about Xinjiang, I could not help but compare events in Xinjiang and Taiwan. Conditions in Xinjiang have been worsening, as the Chinese government classifies Uighurs as terrorists, stripping them of their freedom and basic rights. Do the events in Xinjiang perhaps give us some indication as to Taiwan’s future if it continues on its present course?
The Ma administration seems intent on drawing Taiwan closer to China, and in doing so has increasingly behaved in an undemocratic way in Taiwan. Ma’s agenda seems to be more concerned with pleasing the Chinese government than adhering to the basic principles of human rights and democracy.
During the question-and-answer session at the congressional hearing, Shirley Kan of the US Congressional Research Service expressed concern about these trends in Taiwan. In particular, she criticized the decision by the Ma government to block Kadeer from coming to Taiwan, saying the Taiwanese government was “at odds” with US and Japanese policies on these issues.
If the Ma government wants to be considered part of the democratic world, it needs to show more clearly and openly that it upholds human rights and democracy. Statements about “shared values” with the US are not enough.
Indeed, the Ma administration has all too often given the impression that it has “shared values” with the People’s Republic of China. Its emphasis on being “Chinese” creates the misconception that there is a common heritage — which is only true for those who came over from China with Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) after the civil war.
The reality is that Taiwanese have their own identity, a rich and multicultural heritage based on Aboriginal origins, Hoklo and Hakka influences, and half a century under Japanese rule. Based on this heritage, we need to distinguish ourselves as a freedom-loving nation that is accepted by the international community, instead of cozying up to an undemocratic China.
The people of East Turkestan regrettably do not have that choice anymore; the people of Taiwan do and must exercise the right to self-determination denied their Uighur cousins..
Susan Wang is an undergraduate student in international development Studies at McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
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