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.
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Saturday is the day of the first batch of recall votes primarily targeting lawmakers of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The scale of the recall drive far outstrips the expectations from when the idea was mooted in January by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘). The mass recall effort is reminiscent of the Sunflower movement protests against the then-KMT government’s non-transparent attempts to push through a controversial cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014. That movement, initiated by students, civic groups and non-governmental organizations, included student-led protesters occupying the main legislative chamber for three weeks. The two movements are linked
RSS