Last week, the 10 members of ASEAN signed a charter including an article that provides for the formation of a human rights commission. This body will start its operations once it receives its terms of reference, which are to be defined by ASEAN's foreign ministers.
One would have expected that this commission would attack human rights violations in the region by creating a secretariat to hear allegations and press member governments to address them.
But a few days after the charter was inked, an internal ASEAN report shed light on the likely -- and comical -- terms of reference.
The task force that consulted with member governments in drawing up the commission instead served up rationalization of rights violations and the privileging of government over citizen.
While civic groups had worried that ASEAN would set up a powerless agency, if the commission is built on the present report's recommendations, it may serve to actively oppose the region's progress on human rights.
The process was led by Singapore, a choice that was always going to ring alarm bells. The task force's report said the human rights agency should, in the spirit of ASEAN, prevent the 10 countries from meddling in each other's internal affairs and "oppose external influence attempting to interfere in the human rights issues of any ASEAN member state."
The steps leading to an ASEAN human rights body have been neither democratic nor transparent. As civic groups have noted, ASEAN did not listen to human rights groups, of which the region has no shortage, in determining the commission's powers.
The crisis in Myanmar, which flared so close to the signing of the charter, has made the need for an effective regional human rights body more evident. But ASEAN's rights commission, as envisioned in the report, will probably side with the junta in the face of international pressure by endeavoring to persuade other governments to mind their own business.
Taiwan was quick to praise ASEAN for a job well done and to associate the nation with the economic and other progress of ASEAN's member countries.
Perhaps the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should not have been so quick to pat ASEAN on the back. Governments like Taiwan that have made considerable progress on human rights issues lend themselves little respectability by expressing token concern over the task force's cynical guidelines. Instead of questioning the purpose of the rights commission, Taipei has been handing out laurels.
After ASEAN leaders signed the charter, they sat down with the EU to talk shop. The EU came to the table demanding progress on Myanmar. In addition to endorsing a five-year trade and security plan for the two blocs, ASEAN and the EU issued a joint statement calling on the junta to release dissidents and make other immediate improvements.
But Singapore -- which has a considerable financial interest in good relations with the junta -- dragged its feet, urging the EU to move beyond Myanmar in its ASEAN dealings.
It's all just more of the same. Economic opportunities will continue to be pursued independent of human rights concerns, and while ASEAN members will continue to discuss human rights, their resolve to actually improve the human rights environment is a mirage, rendering the human rights mechanism a sham body, offering mere lip service to the EU.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS