Zur sofortigen Veröffentlichung
Mittwoch, 19. März 2007, Mainz, Deutschland – Der Formosa Verein für Öffentlichkeitsarbeit in Europa (FAPA Europa) und die European Federation of Taiwanese Associations (EFTA) missbilligt zutiefst den kulturellen Völkermord, den die Chinesische Regierung derzeit in Tibet begeht. Tibetanische Protestanten, welche ihren Widerstand gegen Chinas illegale Besetzung ihres Landes demonstrierten, wurden von Chinesischem Sicherheitspersonal festgenommen, ermordet und verfolgt.
„Wir verurteilen aufs Schärfste die eklatante Missachtung der Menschenrechte durch die Chinesische Regierung“ erklärte Jenny Hsieh, Vorsitzende von FAPA Europa. „Die Chinesische Regierung hat systematisch über mehr als 50 Jahre die Tibetanische Kultur und Freiheit ausgerottet, und nun intensivieren sie ihre Unterdrückung des Tibetanischen Volkes.“
Das Volk Tibets besitzt keinerlei ethnische Verwandschaft zum Volk der Han-Chinesen und musste hilflos mit ansehen, wie ihre Nation von der Chinesischen Regierung annektiert, besetzt und zerstört wurde. Ihre Grundrechte und Freiheiten bleiben ihnen seit jeher durch die brutale Herrschaft der Chinesischen Diktatur verwehrt.
„Europäische Staaten sollten eindeutig Stellung bezüglich der entsetzlichen Verletzungen der Menschenrechte beziehen“ meinte Hsieh weiter. „Sie sollten endlich den Kotau vor der Chinesischen Autokratie unterlassen und für eine Freilassung des Tibetanischen Volkes plädieren.“
Ching-Kai Shen, Sprecher der European Federation of Taiwanese Associations, bemerkte außerdem, dass “ein solches Vorgehen die wahren Absichten der Chinesischen Regierung zum Vorschein treten lässt. Es zeigt eindeutig, welche Bedrohung China für freie, demokratische Nationen wie Taiwan darstellt. Wenn die Europäische Union ihre Verpflichtung zu demokratischen Werten demonstrieren möchte, muss sie Taiwan und Tibet konkret unterstützen.“
###
Über FAPA Europa:
FAPA Europa ist eine europäische Organisation die europäisch-taiwanesische Beziehungen fördert und das Recht Taiwans auf Selbstbestimmung unterstützt.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Wird Deutschland Tibet helfen?
Als China mehr schuldlose Tibeter ermordet, bekommen wir noch eine Bestätigung dass China die Menschenrechte und wesentliche Freiheiten gar nicht achtet. Die Tibeter haben gar kein Blutsverwandtschaft mit den Chinesen, und sie erlitten die Zerstörung ihrer Kultur seit 1959 wegen der Besatzung Chinas.
Obwohl die Kanzlerin Deutschlands, Angela Merkel, den Dalai Lama letztes Jahr empfing, muss sie mehr tun, um dieses Gemetzel der Tibeter aufzuhören. Deutschland muss sich standhaft der Missachtung der Menschenrechten Chinas entgegensetzen. Die Regierung Deutschlands darf nicht die Freiheit und die Hoffnung der Tibeter ausverkaufen.
Obwohl die Kanzlerin Deutschlands, Angela Merkel, den Dalai Lama letztes Jahr empfing, muss sie mehr tun, um dieses Gemetzel der Tibeter aufzuhören. Deutschland muss sich standhaft der Missachtung der Menschenrechten Chinas entgegensetzen. Die Regierung Deutschlands darf nicht die Freiheit und die Hoffnung der Tibeter ausverkaufen.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Ma is on the wrong side of history
Published in the Taipei Times on March 17, 2008
By Gerrit van der Wees
As Taiwan prepares for the presidential election, the people face a choice for their future. This goes beyond a choice for the next four years: It is more than a continuation of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government under the new leadership of Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), or a return to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) under new leadership, that of Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
The choice between the two men also harbors longer-term consequences for the future of the country: continuation of the trend towards increasing emphasis on Taiwan's own identity and treatment of Taiwan as a nation-state in its own right, or closer ties with Beijing, eventually drifting towards absorption by China in one way or another.
Hsieh is an advocate of the former line: Building on the legacy of the fight for democracy in the 1970s and 1980s, and the consolidation of democracy under former president Lee Teng-hui and President Chen Shui-bian(陳水扁), he will carefully maneuver to safeguard Taiwan's sovereignty and expand its international position, while attempting to keep China at bay.
Ma is an advocate of eventual unification, but realizes that he cannot move too swiftly since this would anger the Taiwanese majority and make the US and Japan -- already apprehensive about China's military buildup -- increasingly nervous, so he will emphasize the "status quo" while gradually pushing the envelope toward closer ties with China.
How will they perform if they are elected? How will they stand up to pressure from China -- or from the US for that matter? Are they committed to democracy?
To get a glimpse into their character, it is useful to examine how they acted and reacted in an earlier era: when Taiwan was suffering under martial law in the 1970s and 1980s, and when they rose to prominence, each in his own right.
Both Hsieh and Ma were educated to be lawyers. But there the similarity ends.
Hsieh is a native Taiwanese, who became well-known in Taiwan in 1980, when -- together with a number of other lawyers including Chen -- he voluntarily took up the defense of eight prominent leaders of the tangwai (outside-the-party) democracy movement (including Vice President Annette Lu [呂秀蓮] and Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu [陳菊]), who had been arrested and imprisoned by the KMT regime on spurious political charges.
Hsieh was thus willing to stick his neck out and stand up for justice when it counted -- and when few others dared to do so. In the 1980s he became a member of the Taipei City Council, and later was elected to the Legislative Yuan. He was a founding member of the DPP in 1986. Ten years later, in 1996, he was the DPP's vice presidential candidate in Taiwan's first-ever democratic presidential elections (together with Peng Ming-min), but lost to Lee.
Ma, on the other hand, is a Mainlander, who was born in Hong Kong and whose parents came over to Taiwan with Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石). His father was a high-ranking KMT official, and young Ma grew up in the political elite of the Chinese Nationalists. In the 1970s he went to Harvard for his graduate studies, but several of his Taiwanese fellow students complained that Ma was a "student spy" who collected data for the secret police in Taiwan.
After his return to Taiwan In 1981, he quickly rose to prominence within the KMT. He started as an aide and personal translator for then-president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), and in 1984 became deputy-secretary general of the KMT. In 1993 he was appointed minister of justice by Lee and served in that position until 1996.
Let us examine what his position was during the crucial moments in Taiwan's transition to democracy: In 1985-1986, when Taiwan was still under martial law, he was an ardent defender of martial law, arguing that it enhanced "stability" on the island. He also defended the long prison sentences given to proponents of democracy and human rights.
In lengthy letters to foreign governments and political parties which expressed concern about the lack of democracy in Taiwan, Ma waxed eloquently in defense of the indefensible.
Finally, after many hearings and resolutions in the US Congress by senators such as Ted Kennedy and Claiborne Pell and representatives Jim Leach and Steven Solarz, and after increasing pressure from the bottom up in Taiwan, Chiang Ching-kuo relented and lifted martial law in 1987. Ma had been on the wrong side of history.
Almost the same thing happened in 1991 and 1992, when the democratic movement started to push for abolishment of the "eternal" legislators who had been elected in China in 1947, and who were in their 80s and 90s still representing "China" in the legislature and National Assembly. Again, Ma came out against such changes and wanted to maintain a semblance of "China" representation in the legislature.
Fortunately, Lee had vision and pushed through the legislative reforms. Again, Ma was on the wrong side of history.
Fascinatingly, three years later, the same pattern occurred: Lee started to push for direct presidential elections -- to replace the anachronistic system in which the KMT-controlled National Assembly had rubberstamped the KMT choice for president.
Ma was one of the KMT opponents of this move toward full-fledged democracy. Again, his instincts had been to preserve an outdated status quo, and oppose democratic change.
Ma was a follower, who went along with developments when they became inevitable, while Hsieh stood up when it counted, and defended his principles.
The choice for the people of Taiwan is thus between someone who has opposed democratic change, and wants to edge closer to a repressive, undemocratic China, and someone who has been at the forefront of democratic change, and wants to propel Taiwan forwards in the international family of nations.
It will be a decisive moment in Taiwan's history.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.
By Gerrit van der Wees
As Taiwan prepares for the presidential election, the people face a choice for their future. This goes beyond a choice for the next four years: It is more than a continuation of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government under the new leadership of Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), or a return to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) under new leadership, that of Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
The choice between the two men also harbors longer-term consequences for the future of the country: continuation of the trend towards increasing emphasis on Taiwan's own identity and treatment of Taiwan as a nation-state in its own right, or closer ties with Beijing, eventually drifting towards absorption by China in one way or another.
Hsieh is an advocate of the former line: Building on the legacy of the fight for democracy in the 1970s and 1980s, and the consolidation of democracy under former president Lee Teng-hui and President Chen Shui-bian(陳水扁), he will carefully maneuver to safeguard Taiwan's sovereignty and expand its international position, while attempting to keep China at bay.
Ma is an advocate of eventual unification, but realizes that he cannot move too swiftly since this would anger the Taiwanese majority and make the US and Japan -- already apprehensive about China's military buildup -- increasingly nervous, so he will emphasize the "status quo" while gradually pushing the envelope toward closer ties with China.
How will they perform if they are elected? How will they stand up to pressure from China -- or from the US for that matter? Are they committed to democracy?
To get a glimpse into their character, it is useful to examine how they acted and reacted in an earlier era: when Taiwan was suffering under martial law in the 1970s and 1980s, and when they rose to prominence, each in his own right.
Both Hsieh and Ma were educated to be lawyers. But there the similarity ends.
Hsieh is a native Taiwanese, who became well-known in Taiwan in 1980, when -- together with a number of other lawyers including Chen -- he voluntarily took up the defense of eight prominent leaders of the tangwai (outside-the-party) democracy movement (including Vice President Annette Lu [呂秀蓮] and Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu [陳菊]), who had been arrested and imprisoned by the KMT regime on spurious political charges.
Hsieh was thus willing to stick his neck out and stand up for justice when it counted -- and when few others dared to do so. In the 1980s he became a member of the Taipei City Council, and later was elected to the Legislative Yuan. He was a founding member of the DPP in 1986. Ten years later, in 1996, he was the DPP's vice presidential candidate in Taiwan's first-ever democratic presidential elections (together with Peng Ming-min), but lost to Lee.
Ma, on the other hand, is a Mainlander, who was born in Hong Kong and whose parents came over to Taiwan with Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石). His father was a high-ranking KMT official, and young Ma grew up in the political elite of the Chinese Nationalists. In the 1970s he went to Harvard for his graduate studies, but several of his Taiwanese fellow students complained that Ma was a "student spy" who collected data for the secret police in Taiwan.
After his return to Taiwan In 1981, he quickly rose to prominence within the KMT. He started as an aide and personal translator for then-president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), and in 1984 became deputy-secretary general of the KMT. In 1993 he was appointed minister of justice by Lee and served in that position until 1996.
Let us examine what his position was during the crucial moments in Taiwan's transition to democracy: In 1985-1986, when Taiwan was still under martial law, he was an ardent defender of martial law, arguing that it enhanced "stability" on the island. He also defended the long prison sentences given to proponents of democracy and human rights.
In lengthy letters to foreign governments and political parties which expressed concern about the lack of democracy in Taiwan, Ma waxed eloquently in defense of the indefensible.
Finally, after many hearings and resolutions in the US Congress by senators such as Ted Kennedy and Claiborne Pell and representatives Jim Leach and Steven Solarz, and after increasing pressure from the bottom up in Taiwan, Chiang Ching-kuo relented and lifted martial law in 1987. Ma had been on the wrong side of history.
Almost the same thing happened in 1991 and 1992, when the democratic movement started to push for abolishment of the "eternal" legislators who had been elected in China in 1947, and who were in their 80s and 90s still representing "China" in the legislature and National Assembly. Again, Ma came out against such changes and wanted to maintain a semblance of "China" representation in the legislature.
Fortunately, Lee had vision and pushed through the legislative reforms. Again, Ma was on the wrong side of history.
Fascinatingly, three years later, the same pattern occurred: Lee started to push for direct presidential elections -- to replace the anachronistic system in which the KMT-controlled National Assembly had rubberstamped the KMT choice for president.
Ma was one of the KMT opponents of this move toward full-fledged democracy. Again, his instincts had been to preserve an outdated status quo, and oppose democratic change.
Ma was a follower, who went along with developments when they became inevitable, while Hsieh stood up when it counted, and defended his principles.
The choice for the people of Taiwan is thus between someone who has opposed democratic change, and wants to edge closer to a repressive, undemocratic China, and someone who has been at the forefront of democratic change, and wants to propel Taiwan forwards in the international family of nations.
It will be a decisive moment in Taiwan's history.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.
Tibet et le devoir de la France
L'attitude de la Chine contre les droits fondamentals est encore évident. Ce n'est pas assez que la Chine détruit la culture tibetaine, est opprime la liberté religieuse, la liberté de la pensée, et la liberté d'expression, mais maintenant, la Chine estime qu'il faut tuer les
démonstrateurs innocents.
Pourquoi la Chine pense-t-elle qu'elle sort indemne quand ces viols des droits de l'homme se produitent? Parce que les autres pays comme la France refusent à considerer l'importance de ces droits et l'importance de la liberté dans ses politiques étrangère avec la Chine. Mais considérant ces atrocités de la Chine, le gouvernement de la France condamne-t-il ces actes malgré les conséquences pour les relations avec la Chine? Si les pays comme la France continuent à s'incliner devant le regime autoritaire de la Chine, il n'y aura aucune raison pour la Chine de changer sa conduite et attitude envers les droits de l'homme.
démonstrateurs innocents.
Pourquoi la Chine pense-t-elle qu'elle sort indemne quand ces viols des droits de l'homme se produitent? Parce que les autres pays comme la France refusent à considerer l'importance de ces droits et l'importance de la liberté dans ses politiques étrangère avec la Chine. Mais considérant ces atrocités de la Chine, le gouvernement de la France condamne-t-il ces actes malgré les conséquences pour les relations avec la Chine? Si les pays comme la France continuent à s'incliner devant le regime autoritaire de la Chine, il n'y aura aucune raison pour la Chine de changer sa conduite et attitude envers les droits de l'homme.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Die Drohung Chinas
Man kann sich fragen, warum China so groß eine Aufrüstung macht, als kein Land sie bedroht. Ist eine 17,6 Prozent Steigerung wirklich nötig für Ihren Verteidigungshaushalt? Es gibt nur einen Grund, so eine Steigerung zu vollziehen. China will Taiwan von Unabhängigkeit abraten.
Aber die Meinungsumfragen in Taiwan sagen immer, dass die Taiwaner ihre Demokratie und Freiheitsrechten schätzen. Sie wählen ihre eigene Regierung, sie haben ihre eigene Kultur, und sie wollen uberhaupt kein Fremdeindruck in ihrem Staatswesen.
China ignoriert aber die Meinungen der Taiwaner, und bedroht weiter dieses demokratisches Land. Die ganze Welt, nicht nur USA, muss China erklärt, dass diese Bedrohung unannehmbar ist. Die Rechte der Selbstbestimmung gehört auch zu den Taiwaner.
Aber die Meinungsumfragen in Taiwan sagen immer, dass die Taiwaner ihre Demokratie und Freiheitsrechten schätzen. Sie wählen ihre eigene Regierung, sie haben ihre eigene Kultur, und sie wollen uberhaupt kein Fremdeindruck in ihrem Staatswesen.
China ignoriert aber die Meinungen der Taiwaner, und bedroht weiter dieses demokratisches Land. Die ganze Welt, nicht nur USA, muss China erklärt, dass diese Bedrohung unannehmbar ist. Die Rechte der Selbstbestimmung gehört auch zu den Taiwaner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)