Here is a disturbing fact: When it comes to the Taiwan issue, even human rights organizations can be influenced by Beijing.
On Sunday, the Taipei Times reported that Freedom House, a human rights watchdog, expressed interest in setting up a branch in Taiwan.
Freedom House’s interest comes just months after Reporters Without Borders, a press freedom watchdog, set up its first Asia office in Taipei. Both organizations have given Taiwan a high score, citing its freedom and democracy as their reason for setting up an office in the nation.
However, Freedom House added that it likely would not establish a formal office in Taiwan, wishing to “keep a low profile out of concerns that Beijing could pressure it to opt out of the plan.”
What?
This is an organization that ranks China as “not free” and publishes reports condemning China’s human rights abuses, lack of media freedom and religious persecution, among other violations. It has criticized China for “menacing Taiwan” and has cited concerns about Chinese control over Taiwanese politics and the nation’s economy.
Freedom House has applauded Taiwan for holding democratic elections, despite Chinese pressure, but at the same time it is willing to say that it might bow to this exact same Chinese pressure when it comes to setting up an office in Taiwan.
The irony is endless.
The article does not elaborate on this “pressure,” and it seems unlikely that China can directly pressure a non-governmental organization, but China could pressure one of Freedom House’s primary funding sources: the US Department of State.
This is conjecture, but on a more fundamental level, what does it mean for Freedom House’s credibility when it can be influenced by the very country it presumably wants to monitor from Taiwan?
That said, it is still good news that these international non-governmental organizations are taking an interest in Taiwan while the nation’s diplomatic allies continue to jump ship to China. There is no way Taiwan can compete with China in terms of throwing money at nations for diplomatic recognition, but it has something China cannot offer these organizations: security to operate without interference in a free and democratic society.
Given the situation, the government is taking the right steps by investing in a new international non-governmental organization center, which is where Freedom House hopes to open its office.
Announced last year, the NT$2.2 billion (US$71.9 million) project in Taichung’s Wufeng District (霧峰) is in a property once occupied by the Taiwan Provincial Assembly.
Taichung Mayor Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍), who is spearheading the project, has promised that there would be “software” in addition to the “hardware,” including facilitating interaction between local and international groups, and having the building serve as an international talent development center.
While the plans are still under review, the center has already drawn the interest of 101 organizations.
The center is especially interested in those promoting human rights and democracy, humanitarian and environmental causes, as well as women’s rights — causes that are “championed” by Western powers who continue to side with Beijing, despite its poor track record in these areas.
Having organizations such as Freedom House choose Taiwan to open an office in the center would only boost the nation’s visibility and hopefully bring more attention to its plight as China continues to aggressively isolate Taiwan on the international stage.
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