This article in the NY Times
Now that the shock of the earthquake (which they could not control) in Sichuan Province has dissipated somewhat, China’s leaders are focusing again on something that they think they can control: people. Sports fans attending the 2008 Olympics in Beijing will have a long list of rules to carry in their pockets along with their tickets.
On its Web site last week, the Chinese Olympic organizing committee listed a set of restrictions for the 500,000 overseas visitors expected in August. Olympic spectators are being told not to bring in “anything detrimental” to China, including printed materials, photos, records or movies. Religious or political banners or slogans are banned. So are rallies, demonstrations and marches — unless approved by authorities in advance. It also says that visitors with mental illnesses and sexually transmitted diseases will be barred from the country.
We shudder at how those judgments — many of them highly subjective or intrusive — will be made.
The International Olympic Committee has long prohibited political activities at Olympic venues, and we respect the goal of trying to put aside divisions while celebrating a common humanity. But Beijing is using those restrictions for its own authoritarian ends.
To win the right to host the Games, China promised to improve its human-rights record. It keeps moving mostly in the opposite direction. In recent days, authorities effectively disbarred two prominent human-rights lawyers who volunteered to defend Tibetans charged in violent anti-China protests. They also broke up a gathering of 100 parents who were peacefully protesting shoddy school construction and the deaths of their children in the May 12 earthquake.
And while authorities initially relaxed restrictions on journalists and aid workers after the earthquake, they have again tightened up. Local journalists have been discouraged from covering the parents’ protests, and international television networks have complained that security requirements will limit coverage of the Olympics.
There’s an inherent contradiction between China’s desire to invite the world to the Olympics and its effort to deny those visitors — and its own people — the most basic freedoms. Last week, an I.O.C. official said he is convinced the Games would be a “force for good” in China. The committee and Western governments need to remind Beijing that the world is watching, and so far the picture isn’t good.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Don't coddle Beijing – it must account for its role in Darfur
Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian general who was head of the UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda, knows a thing or two about genocide and protecting human rights....
Here's what he has to say in the Globe and Mail:
Many consider it taboo to speak of the genocide in Darfur and the upcoming Beijing Olympics in the same breath. I disagree entirely. I believe the two should be firmly linked in the public's mind, and I said so in blunt terms during a recent CBC interview.
I was quickly and severely criticized in print for my comments by journalist Lysiane Gagnon and academic Christian Constantin. They seemed to think I needed a history lesson on Chinese political progress and a reminder of the West's sins, including our willingness to trade with countries whose human-rights records are shaky or even dismal.
There's no doubt Western countries have demonstrated abysmal judgment in various crises over the past couple of centuries, and their failures and misdeeds need retelling and analysis lest they be repeated. Western insouciance and intransigence over the past few decades alone have been staggering in terms of human suffering – think of Sierra Leone, Rwanda, the Congo, Eastern Europe and Afghanistan, to name a few.
For the moment, however, the crisis screaming out to the West and the rest of the international community is the genocide taking place in Darfur. China has been obstructionist in the UN Security Council while blithely supplying Khartoum with modern arms in exchange for oil. This has enabled Sudan to systematically kill an estimated 300,000 Darfurians since 2003, and to harass, torture, rape and starve the 21/2 million it has displaced.
The Chinese government wants us to ignore its central role in all this, and to laud it as the gracious host of the 2008 Olympic Games. Beijing's painstaking efforts to paint itself in a positive image attests to its obsession with being unconditionally accepted as an open, modern, honourable and progressive player by the international community.
Based on its behaviour in the Sudan, however – I liken it to that of a colonial power – the Chinese government cannot possibly be afforded the accolades it so eagerly craves. Led by liberal democracies and middle powers, including Canada, the international community must protest against Beijing's role in fuelling Darfur's genocide. It must use the leverage of the very international disapprobation China fears to make it stop supporting Khartoum and obstructing the deployment of the desperately needed 26,000-strong United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur.
Ms. Gagnon and Mr. Constantin assert that Beijing is too proud to give in to Western pressure. Moreover, they say, public pressure by the West would only push China to withdraw behind its Communist dictatorship. We need to challenge these assumptions. In any event, remaining silent while China continues to help Khartoum hammer away at helpless civilians with gun ships and co-ordinated ground attacks with the brutal janjaweed militia would be repugnant and morally indefensible.
Fortunately, international criticism is not the only force at work. Despite the government's repression, Chinese student, labour and intellectual movements have been fighting for democratic and political reforms for a long time. Recall the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, which emerged from the disaffection of ordinary Chinese citizens. The country's growing middle class, numbering about 300 million, who seek a better standard of living and greater freedoms, will also push their government to become a respected and reliable international economic power.
According to Ms. Gagnon and Mr. Constantin, China has made significant strides in justice and tolerance. They remind us of some of the great economic, cultural, political and social progress the country has made. But let us not forget that it still routinely engages in torture and arbitrary imprisonment. We must also acknowledge that, with its 2.2 million soldiers, the Chinese government has ample ability to contribute to peace efforts in Darfur, not just to send in advisers to teach the Sudanese forces how to use the weapons it provides against defenceless civilians.
In addition to the existing political, economic and diplomatic channels, we must use the Olympics to pressure China and enlighten its people about what is happening in Darfur, and why the international community is outraged. For now, China keeps its Chinese citizens hyped on Olympic glory, insulated from outside media and ignorant of its dirty work in Darfur. It's a despicable scenario that we cannot allow to persist.
Senator Roméo Dallaire is a retired lieutenant-general and former commander of the UN Assistance Mission in Rwanda
Here's what he has to say in the Globe and Mail:
Many consider it taboo to speak of the genocide in Darfur and the upcoming Beijing Olympics in the same breath. I disagree entirely. I believe the two should be firmly linked in the public's mind, and I said so in blunt terms during a recent CBC interview.
I was quickly and severely criticized in print for my comments by journalist Lysiane Gagnon and academic Christian Constantin. They seemed to think I needed a history lesson on Chinese political progress and a reminder of the West's sins, including our willingness to trade with countries whose human-rights records are shaky or even dismal.
There's no doubt Western countries have demonstrated abysmal judgment in various crises over the past couple of centuries, and their failures and misdeeds need retelling and analysis lest they be repeated. Western insouciance and intransigence over the past few decades alone have been staggering in terms of human suffering – think of Sierra Leone, Rwanda, the Congo, Eastern Europe and Afghanistan, to name a few.
For the moment, however, the crisis screaming out to the West and the rest of the international community is the genocide taking place in Darfur. China has been obstructionist in the UN Security Council while blithely supplying Khartoum with modern arms in exchange for oil. This has enabled Sudan to systematically kill an estimated 300,000 Darfurians since 2003, and to harass, torture, rape and starve the 21/2 million it has displaced.
The Chinese government wants us to ignore its central role in all this, and to laud it as the gracious host of the 2008 Olympic Games. Beijing's painstaking efforts to paint itself in a positive image attests to its obsession with being unconditionally accepted as an open, modern, honourable and progressive player by the international community.
Based on its behaviour in the Sudan, however – I liken it to that of a colonial power – the Chinese government cannot possibly be afforded the accolades it so eagerly craves. Led by liberal democracies and middle powers, including Canada, the international community must protest against Beijing's role in fuelling Darfur's genocide. It must use the leverage of the very international disapprobation China fears to make it stop supporting Khartoum and obstructing the deployment of the desperately needed 26,000-strong United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur.
Ms. Gagnon and Mr. Constantin assert that Beijing is too proud to give in to Western pressure. Moreover, they say, public pressure by the West would only push China to withdraw behind its Communist dictatorship. We need to challenge these assumptions. In any event, remaining silent while China continues to help Khartoum hammer away at helpless civilians with gun ships and co-ordinated ground attacks with the brutal janjaweed militia would be repugnant and morally indefensible.
Fortunately, international criticism is not the only force at work. Despite the government's repression, Chinese student, labour and intellectual movements have been fighting for democratic and political reforms for a long time. Recall the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, which emerged from the disaffection of ordinary Chinese citizens. The country's growing middle class, numbering about 300 million, who seek a better standard of living and greater freedoms, will also push their government to become a respected and reliable international economic power.
According to Ms. Gagnon and Mr. Constantin, China has made significant strides in justice and tolerance. They remind us of some of the great economic, cultural, political and social progress the country has made. But let us not forget that it still routinely engages in torture and arbitrary imprisonment. We must also acknowledge that, with its 2.2 million soldiers, the Chinese government has ample ability to contribute to peace efforts in Darfur, not just to send in advisers to teach the Sudanese forces how to use the weapons it provides against defenceless civilians.
In addition to the existing political, economic and diplomatic channels, we must use the Olympics to pressure China and enlighten its people about what is happening in Darfur, and why the international community is outraged. For now, China keeps its Chinese citizens hyped on Olympic glory, insulated from outside media and ignorant of its dirty work in Darfur. It's a despicable scenario that we cannot allow to persist.
Senator Roméo Dallaire is a retired lieutenant-general and former commander of the UN Assistance Mission in Rwanda
Athletes should think twice about heading to Beijing: Elvis Stojko
This appeared in the Globe and Mail:
Two-time Olympic medallist Elvis Stojko says Canadian athletes should “make a stand” for human rights and think twice about heading to the Beijing Summer Games.
Mr. Stojko, who won silver medals at the 1994 and 1998 Winter Olympics, says he would consider boycotting the Games if he were still a competing athlete.
Mr. Stojko made the comments during a rally protesting China's human rights record outside the Ontario legislature Saturday afternoon.
About 200 people showed up for the rally, which included lighting up a mock Olympic torch.
The three-time world figure skating champion also says it's unacceptable for countries to muzzle athletes' opinions, since the athletes are the ones representing their countries.
China's government has faced mounting criticism over its human rights record, and drew fire for a recent crackdown against anti-government protests in Tibet.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has confirmed he will not attend the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Games but Canada has rejected the idea of boycotting the Olympics.
“I know for me, it would be extremely difficult to be able to go compete in a country that was hosting the games, but don't exemplify what the games are being held for,” Mr. Stojko told The Canadian Press.
He added athletes have an ability to raise awareness about important issues.
“People should know what's going on and athletes have a chance to be able to do that if they wish,” said Mr. Stojko, who added China's treatment of its people is dragging “negative energy” into the world tournament.
But Steve Keogh, communications manager from the Canadian Olympic Committee, said athletes are free to say what they want.
“There's been no instruction to our athletes not to say anything, they can say anything they wish.”
Mr. Keogh added that Canada is a signatory of the Olympic charter, which prohibits athletes from making any “proactive demonstration while in an Olympic venue.”
Two-time Olympic medallist Elvis Stojko says Canadian athletes should “make a stand” for human rights and think twice about heading to the Beijing Summer Games.
Mr. Stojko, who won silver medals at the 1994 and 1998 Winter Olympics, says he would consider boycotting the Games if he were still a competing athlete.
Mr. Stojko made the comments during a rally protesting China's human rights record outside the Ontario legislature Saturday afternoon.
About 200 people showed up for the rally, which included lighting up a mock Olympic torch.
The three-time world figure skating champion also says it's unacceptable for countries to muzzle athletes' opinions, since the athletes are the ones representing their countries.
China's government has faced mounting criticism over its human rights record, and drew fire for a recent crackdown against anti-government protests in Tibet.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has confirmed he will not attend the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Games but Canada has rejected the idea of boycotting the Olympics.
“I know for me, it would be extremely difficult to be able to go compete in a country that was hosting the games, but don't exemplify what the games are being held for,” Mr. Stojko told The Canadian Press.
He added athletes have an ability to raise awareness about important issues.
“People should know what's going on and athletes have a chance to be able to do that if they wish,” said Mr. Stojko, who added China's treatment of its people is dragging “negative energy” into the world tournament.
But Steve Keogh, communications manager from the Canadian Olympic Committee, said athletes are free to say what they want.
“There's been no instruction to our athletes not to say anything, they can say anything they wish.”
Mr. Keogh added that Canada is a signatory of the Olympic charter, which prohibits athletes from making any “proactive demonstration while in an Olympic venue.”
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
FAPA Europa und EFTA verurteilen die Unterdrückung Tibets durch China
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.
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.
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.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Kosovo, Taiwan, und Deutschland
Deutschland hat Recht, Kosovo anzuerkennen. Kosovo hat Leiden und Genozid ertragen, das von der Regierung Slobodan Milosevic vollbracht. Die Leute Kosovo können jetzt einen neuen Anfang übernehmen, und Deutschland soll dieses neue Land unterstützen. Die Menschenrechten, die Freiheit der Kosovar mussen geschützt sein.
Aus welchem Gründen aber, die Regierung Deutschland denkt dass die Demokratie und die Freiheit in Asien ist gar nicht wichtig. Taiwan ist eine richtige Demokratie und seine Regierung schätzt die wesentlichen Rechte ihre Bürger. Warum erkennt Deutschland Taiwan dann nicht?
Natürlicherweise will die Regierung Deutschlands vor China katzbuckeln, um die Geschäftsbezeihung mit China auszubauen. Aber Deutschland weiss sicher, wie scheußlich eine strenge Diktatur sein kann. Wenn Deutschland wirklich die Tyrannei entgegensetzt, muss es die Demokratie Taiwans unterstützen. Freiheit und Frieden ist wichtig, nicht nur in Europa aber in Asien auch.
Aus welchem Gründen aber, die Regierung Deutschland denkt dass die Demokratie und die Freiheit in Asien ist gar nicht wichtig. Taiwan ist eine richtige Demokratie und seine Regierung schätzt die wesentlichen Rechte ihre Bürger. Warum erkennt Deutschland Taiwan dann nicht?
Natürlicherweise will die Regierung Deutschlands vor China katzbuckeln, um die Geschäftsbezeihung mit China auszubauen. Aber Deutschland weiss sicher, wie scheußlich eine strenge Diktatur sein kann. Wenn Deutschland wirklich die Tyrannei entgegensetzt, muss es die Demokratie Taiwans unterstützen. Freiheit und Frieden ist wichtig, nicht nur in Europa aber in Asien auch.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The West's double standards
With Western powers such as the UK and the US recognising the independence of Kosovo from Serbia, Kosovar leaders are rejoicing. Such recognition is also welcome to human rights and democracy activists, who also remember the horrors of the "ethnic cleansing" of Albanians, instigated by the regime of Slobodan Milosevic.
While these Western nations admirably welcome Kosovo into the international community, they are guilty of double standards. While they hope to assist Kosovars in shaking off the shackles of the past, they are complicit in isolating Taiwan, in their attempt to curry favour with China. Taiwan's past is also ridden with unfortunate injustices, and its transformation into a full democracy has been nothing short of remarkable. The UK and the US however, refuse to express their opposition to China's zeal to annex Taiwan, and are hardly perturbed at the alarming military threats that China regularly makes against Taiwan.
Western leaders apparently believe that democracy and freedom are important in Europe, but can be abandoned in Asia.
While these Western nations admirably welcome Kosovo into the international community, they are guilty of double standards. While they hope to assist Kosovars in shaking off the shackles of the past, they are complicit in isolating Taiwan, in their attempt to curry favour with China. Taiwan's past is also ridden with unfortunate injustices, and its transformation into a full democracy has been nothing short of remarkable. The UK and the US however, refuse to express their opposition to China's zeal to annex Taiwan, and are hardly perturbed at the alarming military threats that China regularly makes against Taiwan.
Western leaders apparently believe that democracy and freedom are important in Europe, but can be abandoned in Asia.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Deutschland darf nicht Demokratie im Stich lassen
Obwohl Deutschland eine gute Beziehung mit China haben möchte, darf es nicht die Demokratie und Menschenrechte im Stich lassen. Herr Frank-Walter Steinmeier muss sich erinnern, dass China noch eine unbarmherzige Diktatur ist. China unterdrückt immer die Menschenrechte seiner Bürger, zerstört die Kultur Tibets, und droht die Demokratie Taiwans.
Die Regierung Deutschlands muss europäische Werte in ihrer Außenpolitik äußern, um die Freiheit und wesentlichen Rechte aller Leute fördern. Es ist wichtig dass Deutschland nicht vor China katzbuckeln. Lieber muss Deutschland die Volksabstimmung Taiwans unterstützen, und für die Selbstständigkeit Tibets kämpfen.
Die Regierung Deutschlands muss europäische Werte in ihrer Außenpolitik äußern, um die Freiheit und wesentlichen Rechte aller Leute fördern. Es ist wichtig dass Deutschland nicht vor China katzbuckeln. Lieber muss Deutschland die Volksabstimmung Taiwans unterstützen, und für die Selbstständigkeit Tibets kämpfen.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
MOFA condemns Chinese action at WHO board meet
Published in the Taipei Times
By Jenny W. Hsu
STAFF REPORTER, WITH CNA
Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008, Page 1
China ambushed the nation's allies on the Executive Board of the WHO by robbing them of the opportunity to speak up for Taiwan, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said yesterday.
El Salvador, Paraguay and Sao Tome and Principe had jointly proposed a draft resolution calling for the International Health Regulations (IHR) of 2005 to be extended to include non-members like Taiwan.
The bill, which was initially scheduled for consideration during yesterday's meeting of the 122nd session of the WHO's Executive Board, was successfully blocked by China after it unexpectedly requested that its review be advanced to Monday 10 minutes before the day's meeting was to conclude, when most of the bill's sponsors were absent.
"We strongly condemn China for disregarding the health rights of Taiwanese. We also protest against the WHO for ignoring our allies' right to speak on behalf of their draft resolution," ministry spokeswoman Phoebe Yeh (葉非比) said.
Yeh said China has never cared about the health of Taiwanese, as shown by its failure last year to inform Taiwan of a shipment of potentially toxic corn from Thailand.
She said Paraguay had yesterday proposed an amendment stipulating that all countries must be included in the framework in order to prevent gaps in global efforts against disease.
Quoting the "universal application" clause within the IHR, Paraguay said China had no legitimate authority to represent Taiwan's health interests.
Yeh told the Taipei Times that representatives from San Tome and Principe and El Salvador had also condemned Beijing's claim to represent Taiwan's health interests.
Belize, although not a board member, also spoke in favor of Taiwan.
At press time, the meeting had not been adjourned.
It was reported that China also proposed its own amendment in an effort to block Taiwan's representation in the health agreement. Sri Lanka and Djibouti seconded China's motion.
Shen Lyu-hsun (沈呂巡), the nation's representative to Geneva, said the incident showed that China's suppression of Taiwan had intensified. He protested what he called the unfair ruling by WHO Executive Board Chairman Balaji Sadasivan in rejecting the bill, saying Beijing had wielded its influence to sabotage Taipei's chance.
"Unless the WHO does something about it, Taiwan will remain a gap in the global disease surveillance system after the Executive Board meeting concludes," Shen said.
During Monday's meeting, Li Baodong (李保東), China's permanent representative to the UN in Geneva, said the draft resolution had challenged the "one China" principle. He said that with statehood as a prerequisite for implementation of the IHR, Beijing had already stated last May that the IHR applies to the "entire territory of the People's Republic of China, including ... the Taiwan Province."
An April agreement between Beijing and the WHO on Taiwan's role in the IHR stipulated that China's National Focal Point would handle routine IHR matters through existing cross-strait health communication channels, Li said.
By Jenny W. Hsu
STAFF REPORTER, WITH CNA
Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008, Page 1
China ambushed the nation's allies on the Executive Board of the WHO by robbing them of the opportunity to speak up for Taiwan, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said yesterday.
El Salvador, Paraguay and Sao Tome and Principe had jointly proposed a draft resolution calling for the International Health Regulations (IHR) of 2005 to be extended to include non-members like Taiwan.
The bill, which was initially scheduled for consideration during yesterday's meeting of the 122nd session of the WHO's Executive Board, was successfully blocked by China after it unexpectedly requested that its review be advanced to Monday 10 minutes before the day's meeting was to conclude, when most of the bill's sponsors were absent.
"We strongly condemn China for disregarding the health rights of Taiwanese. We also protest against the WHO for ignoring our allies' right to speak on behalf of their draft resolution," ministry spokeswoman Phoebe Yeh (葉非比) said.
Yeh said China has never cared about the health of Taiwanese, as shown by its failure last year to inform Taiwan of a shipment of potentially toxic corn from Thailand.
She said Paraguay had yesterday proposed an amendment stipulating that all countries must be included in the framework in order to prevent gaps in global efforts against disease.
Quoting the "universal application" clause within the IHR, Paraguay said China had no legitimate authority to represent Taiwan's health interests.
Yeh told the Taipei Times that representatives from San Tome and Principe and El Salvador had also condemned Beijing's claim to represent Taiwan's health interests.
Belize, although not a board member, also spoke in favor of Taiwan.
At press time, the meeting had not been adjourned.
It was reported that China also proposed its own amendment in an effort to block Taiwan's representation in the health agreement. Sri Lanka and Djibouti seconded China's motion.
Shen Lyu-hsun (沈呂巡), the nation's representative to Geneva, said the incident showed that China's suppression of Taiwan had intensified. He protested what he called the unfair ruling by WHO Executive Board Chairman Balaji Sadasivan in rejecting the bill, saying Beijing had wielded its influence to sabotage Taipei's chance.
"Unless the WHO does something about it, Taiwan will remain a gap in the global disease surveillance system after the Executive Board meeting concludes," Shen said.
During Monday's meeting, Li Baodong (李保東), China's permanent representative to the UN in Geneva, said the draft resolution had challenged the "one China" principle. He said that with statehood as a prerequisite for implementation of the IHR, Beijing had already stated last May that the IHR applies to the "entire territory of the People's Republic of China, including ... the Taiwan Province."
An April agreement between Beijing and the WHO on Taiwan's role in the IHR stipulated that China's National Focal Point would handle routine IHR matters through existing cross-strait health communication channels, Li said.
Brown and China
Despite Prime Minister Gordon Brown's enthusiasm to open up new avenues for trade with China, he must not forget the threats and dangers to human rights, peace, and stability that the Chinese dictatorship still poses. China's deployment of over 1000 missiles aimed at Taiwan is the single most contributing threat to the fragile peace enjoyed in East Asia. Its continued persecution of Tibetan activists and Falun Dafa adherents contradicts the "peaceful rise" of China that its leaders attempt to sell.
Mr. Brown must ensure that British views on human rights, democratic development, and fundamental freedoms are expressed clearly to the Chinese dictatorship. This trip is an excellent opportunity for Britain to press for responsible actions and continued reforms in the Chinese dictatorship. Mr. Brown must make the most of this chance.
Dr. Stan Lai, Spokesperson
Formosan Association for Public Affairs Europe
Mr. Brown must ensure that British views on human rights, democratic development, and fundamental freedoms are expressed clearly to the Chinese dictatorship. This trip is an excellent opportunity for Britain to press for responsible actions and continued reforms in the Chinese dictatorship. Mr. Brown must make the most of this chance.
Dr. Stan Lai, Spokesperson
Formosan Association for Public Affairs Europe
Saturday, January 12, 2008
President Chen confers honor on EU parliamentarian
This article from the Taipei Times
article link
Legislative elections and referendums: President Chen confers honor on EU parliamentarian
By Jenny W. Hsu
STAFF REPORTER
Saturday, Jan 12, 2008, Page 3
Taiwanese politicians should set aside their differences and agree on a united foreign affairs policy in order to safeguard the nation's diplomatic future, the chairman of the Taiwan Friendship Group at the European Parliament said yesterday.
Georg Jarzembowski, who is on his 11th visit to Taiwan, said after the "gun smoke" of the election has cleared, both the pan-blues and pan-greens should come together to formulate and define a "broadly based" foreign policy in an effort to gain the support of the nation's "powerhouse" friends, such as the US, Japan and the EU.
Jarzembowksi said the most important task for his group is to talk to the various parties to get their impression as to whether their opponents were cheating.
"We don't have any mistrust of the parties," he said.
His team are scheduled to visit two polling stations and the Central Election Commission today to monitor the vote-counting process.
EU OPPOSITION
When asked about the EU's opposition to the planned referendums on Taiwan's bid to join the UN, Jarzembowksi said he was aware of the two versions proposed by the Democratic Progressive Party and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and he believed it was the right of the Taiwanese to determine how they wanted to be represented.
He said his group has initiated a motion at the European Parliament to support Taiwan's execution of the referendums. So far, over 100 parlimentarians have added their signatures to the motion, he said.
Jazermbowski also said the existing cross-strait tension is unlikely to be assuaged unless there is fresh dialogue between to the two governments.
He admitted, however, it would take much "patience" and time before a dialogue based on an equal footing would become a reality.
HONOR
Earlier yesterday, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) conferred an Order of Brilliant Star with Grand Cordon on Jarzembowski to honor him for his contribution in enhancing the friendship between the European Parliament and Taiwan.
Chen expressed appreciation and gratitude to the European Parliament for its support in opposing the lifting of its embargo on arms to China, backing the nation's bid to join the WHO and in urging China to remove its missiles targeting Taiwan.
"I believe the reason the European Parliament has been very supportive of Taiwan is that Taiwanese share the same universal values as the Europeans, which are democracy, freedom and human rights," Chen said.
Jarzembowski said he sincerely appreciated the award because he has been urging the international community to recognize the sovereignty of Taiwan and has worked to improve relations between the European Parliament and Taiwan since he took up the position as head of the Taiwan Friendship Group of the European Parliament in 1999.
ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY SHIH HSIU-CHUAN
article link
Legislative elections and referendums: President Chen confers honor on EU parliamentarian
By Jenny W. Hsu
STAFF REPORTER
Saturday, Jan 12, 2008, Page 3
Taiwanese politicians should set aside their differences and agree on a united foreign affairs policy in order to safeguard the nation's diplomatic future, the chairman of the Taiwan Friendship Group at the European Parliament said yesterday.
Georg Jarzembowski, who is on his 11th visit to Taiwan, said after the "gun smoke" of the election has cleared, both the pan-blues and pan-greens should come together to formulate and define a "broadly based" foreign policy in an effort to gain the support of the nation's "powerhouse" friends, such as the US, Japan and the EU.
Jarzembowksi said the most important task for his group is to talk to the various parties to get their impression as to whether their opponents were cheating.
"We don't have any mistrust of the parties," he said.
His team are scheduled to visit two polling stations and the Central Election Commission today to monitor the vote-counting process.
EU OPPOSITION
When asked about the EU's opposition to the planned referendums on Taiwan's bid to join the UN, Jarzembowksi said he was aware of the two versions proposed by the Democratic Progressive Party and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and he believed it was the right of the Taiwanese to determine how they wanted to be represented.
He said his group has initiated a motion at the European Parliament to support Taiwan's execution of the referendums. So far, over 100 parlimentarians have added their signatures to the motion, he said.
Jazermbowski also said the existing cross-strait tension is unlikely to be assuaged unless there is fresh dialogue between to the two governments.
He admitted, however, it would take much "patience" and time before a dialogue based on an equal footing would become a reality.
HONOR
Earlier yesterday, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) conferred an Order of Brilliant Star with Grand Cordon on Jarzembowski to honor him for his contribution in enhancing the friendship between the European Parliament and Taiwan.
Chen expressed appreciation and gratitude to the European Parliament for its support in opposing the lifting of its embargo on arms to China, backing the nation's bid to join the WHO and in urging China to remove its missiles targeting Taiwan.
"I believe the reason the European Parliament has been very supportive of Taiwan is that Taiwanese share the same universal values as the Europeans, which are democracy, freedom and human rights," Chen said.
Jarzembowski said he sincerely appreciated the award because he has been urging the international community to recognize the sovereignty of Taiwan and has worked to improve relations between the European Parliament and Taiwan since he took up the position as head of the Taiwan Friendship Group of the European Parliament in 1999.
ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY SHIH HSIU-CHUAN
Sunday, December 09, 2007
KMT and Ma Ying-Jeou disrespect human rights again...
Well, what a surprise.....the KMT and presidential candidate Ma Ying-Jeou don't get human rights once again. In fact, it seems that they've never ever understood the concept of human rights.
They are currently fighting tooth and nail to keep the legacy of Taiwan's most notorious dictator enshrined in Taipei. This stupid Chiang-Kai Shek memorial is finally being disposed of by the DPP government, but of course Ma Ying-Jeou and Taipei KMT mayor Hau Lung-Bin are insistent that this monument to a cruel, terrible dictator stay.
In Germany, no one dares to commorate Hitler, as his human rights record and blatant destruction of Germany and persecution of the Jewish people are abhorred. Why then does the KMT want to honour Chiang Kai-Shek, who is basically the Hitler of Taiwan. How can the KMT claim to have reformed? How can they claim to respect human rights?
It is clear that anyone who values human rights must turn their backs on the stupid KMT and their backward ways. Ma Ying-Jeou can no longer claim to have learned lessons from the KMT's abhorrent past....
They are currently fighting tooth and nail to keep the legacy of Taiwan's most notorious dictator enshrined in Taipei. This stupid Chiang-Kai Shek memorial is finally being disposed of by the DPP government, but of course Ma Ying-Jeou and Taipei KMT mayor Hau Lung-Bin are insistent that this monument to a cruel, terrible dictator stay.
In Germany, no one dares to commorate Hitler, as his human rights record and blatant destruction of Germany and persecution of the Jewish people are abhorred. Why then does the KMT want to honour Chiang Kai-Shek, who is basically the Hitler of Taiwan. How can the KMT claim to have reformed? How can they claim to respect human rights?
It is clear that anyone who values human rights must turn their backs on the stupid KMT and their backward ways. Ma Ying-Jeou can no longer claim to have learned lessons from the KMT's abhorrent past....
Sunday, December 02, 2007
EU muss die Demokratie Taiwans unterstützen
Die Europäische Union sagt immer dass sie die Demokratie und Menschenrechte schätzt. Es ist dann widersprüchlich, wenn sie immer vor China katzbuckelt und dem "Ein-China Politik" nachgibt. Es ist sehr enttäuschend dass die Politiker Europas sich der Volksabstimmung Taiwans über UN-Mitgliedschaft entgegensetzten. Ihrer Widerstand gegen diese Volksabstimmung verrät ihren Widerwillen, die Demokratie in der Welt zu unterstützen.
Offentsichlich sind die Menschenrechte der Europäer sehr wichtig, aber die Rechte und Freiheit der Taiwaner nicht nötig. Die Politiker Europas soll sich schämen, als sie keine Tapferkeit haben, die Drohungen Chinas gegen Taiwan zu verurteilen. Sie haben auch keine Tapferkeit, eine gerechte Außenpolitik zu machen.
Offentsichlich sind die Menschenrechte der Europäer sehr wichtig, aber die Rechte und Freiheit der Taiwaner nicht nötig. Die Politiker Europas soll sich schämen, als sie keine Tapferkeit haben, die Drohungen Chinas gegen Taiwan zu verurteilen. Sie haben auch keine Tapferkeit, eine gerechte Außenpolitik zu machen.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Warum erkennt die Schweiz Taiwan nicht an?
Die Bundesverfassung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft ist bereits vor acht Jahren angenommen worden. Man sollte sich deshalb fragen, warum die Schweiz noch ihre "ein China Politik" beibehält? Widerspricht diese Politik nicht den Grundsätzen, die in der Bundesverfassung der Schweiz deutlich aufgeführt sind?
Die Bundesverfassung fordert, dass die Außenpolitik der Schweiz "die Achtung der Menschenrechte und die Förderung der Demokratie" sowie "das friedliche Zusammenleben der Völker" unterstützt. Aber die "ein China Politik" unterwirft sich dem unvernünftigen Anspruch Chinas auf Taiwan als Teil seines Territoriums. Dieser Anspruch übt großen Druck auf die Menschenrechte und die Demokratie der Taiwaner aus, die täglich unter der Bedrohung von tausend Raketen auf chinesischer Seite leben müssen.
Taiwan, das die Freiheit und die Grundrechte seiner Bürger respektiert, ist wohl die schwungvollste Demokratie in Asien. Meinungsumfragen in Taiwan belegen, dass die Taiwaner eine Vereinigung mit China beharrlich ablehnen. Und wie kann man es auch nicht verstehen? Die Politik Chinas bedeutet das genaue Gegenteil zur demokratischen Gesellschaft, die sich die Taiwaner aufgebaut haben. China zerstört die Kultur Tibets, verfolgt unbarmherzig politische Dissidenten, und verhindert Demokratie und Meinungsfreiheit in Hongkong. Da ist es nur natürlich, dass die Taiwaner ihre Demokratie vor dem Einfluss China schützen wollen.
Wenn die Schweiz sich an ihre Bundesverfassung halten will, muss sie die "ein China Politik" aufheben. Sie muss unbedingt äußern, dass die Drohungen Chinas gegenüber Taiwan unannehmbar sind und Taiwan anerkennen. Die Schweiz muss sich den Ansprüchen Chinas entschlossen entgegensetzen und dabei die Integration Taiwans in die internationale Gemeinschaft unterstützen.
Die Neutralität der Schweiz ist eines ihrer politischen Aushängeschilder. Aber die "ein China Politik" zwingt die Schweiz Partei zu ergreifen. Stattdessen sollte die Schweiz lieber beide Länder anerkennen, entsprechend der Wirklichkeit. Taiwan und China sind zwei unabhängige Länder, und die Außenpolitik der Schweiz muss es auch so erkennen. Die Politiker der Schweiz müssen ihrer eigenen Bundesverfassung folgen, und die Demokratie unterstützen. Fordern die Schweizer Grundsätze das nicht auch?
Hanjo Lu und Dr. Stan Lai
Formosa Verein für Öffentlichkeitsarbeit
Die Bundesverfassung fordert, dass die Außenpolitik der Schweiz "die Achtung der Menschenrechte und die Förderung der Demokratie" sowie "das friedliche Zusammenleben der Völker" unterstützt. Aber die "ein China Politik" unterwirft sich dem unvernünftigen Anspruch Chinas auf Taiwan als Teil seines Territoriums. Dieser Anspruch übt großen Druck auf die Menschenrechte und die Demokratie der Taiwaner aus, die täglich unter der Bedrohung von tausend Raketen auf chinesischer Seite leben müssen.
Taiwan, das die Freiheit und die Grundrechte seiner Bürger respektiert, ist wohl die schwungvollste Demokratie in Asien. Meinungsumfragen in Taiwan belegen, dass die Taiwaner eine Vereinigung mit China beharrlich ablehnen. Und wie kann man es auch nicht verstehen? Die Politik Chinas bedeutet das genaue Gegenteil zur demokratischen Gesellschaft, die sich die Taiwaner aufgebaut haben. China zerstört die Kultur Tibets, verfolgt unbarmherzig politische Dissidenten, und verhindert Demokratie und Meinungsfreiheit in Hongkong. Da ist es nur natürlich, dass die Taiwaner ihre Demokratie vor dem Einfluss China schützen wollen.
Wenn die Schweiz sich an ihre Bundesverfassung halten will, muss sie die "ein China Politik" aufheben. Sie muss unbedingt äußern, dass die Drohungen Chinas gegenüber Taiwan unannehmbar sind und Taiwan anerkennen. Die Schweiz muss sich den Ansprüchen Chinas entschlossen entgegensetzen und dabei die Integration Taiwans in die internationale Gemeinschaft unterstützen.
Die Neutralität der Schweiz ist eines ihrer politischen Aushängeschilder. Aber die "ein China Politik" zwingt die Schweiz Partei zu ergreifen. Stattdessen sollte die Schweiz lieber beide Länder anerkennen, entsprechend der Wirklichkeit. Taiwan und China sind zwei unabhängige Länder, und die Außenpolitik der Schweiz muss es auch so erkennen. Die Politiker der Schweiz müssen ihrer eigenen Bundesverfassung folgen, und die Demokratie unterstützen. Fordern die Schweizer Grundsätze das nicht auch?
Hanjo Lu und Dr. Stan Lai
Formosa Verein für Öffentlichkeitsarbeit
Saturday, November 10, 2007
China-Europe Relations Get Complicated
Brookings Northeast Asia Commentary, May 2007
David Shambaugh, Professor and Director, China Policy Program, Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies
_____
After a decade of rosy rhetoric and steadily improving ties, China-Europe relations entered a more complicated phase. While the relationship between China and Europe has developed remarkably quickly and broadly since 1995, it now seems that the relationship may be passing from the "honeymoon" phase into the "marriage" phase of the relationship. Both parties are beginning to realize the complexities of the relationship, the fact that they do not see many issues identically, that outside factors and actors contribute to shaping the relationship-but that mutual areas of common interest and cooperation remain substantial and dominant.
The release in October 2006 of the European Commission's latest official "Communication" on China, and the accompanying policy paper on EU-China trade and investment, signaled and made explicit many of the concerns about China that had been bubbling beneath the surface in Europe. In the Communication, for the first time in such a policy document, the European Commission made a number of requests of China.
* "open its markets and ensure fair market competition";
* "reduce and eliminate trade and non-tariff barriers";
* "level the [commercial] playing field";
* "fully implement WTO obligations";
* "better protect intellectual property rights";
* "end forced technology transfers";
* "stop granting prohibited subsidies";
* "work on clean energy technologies";
* "be a more active and responsible energy partner";
* "ensure balance in science and technology cooperation";
* "[recognize] the international responsibilities commensurate to its economic importance and role as a permanent member of the UN Security Council";
* "better protect human rights";
* "[ensure] more accountable government";
* be more "results oriented with higher quality exchanges and concrete results" in the human rights dialogue;
* ratify the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
* enter into formal dialogue with the EU and "improve transparency" concerning aid policies in Africa;
* "maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait";
* improve "transparency on military expenditures and objectives";
* "comply with all non-proliferation and disarmament treaties";
* "strengthen export controls of WMD-related materials".
This laundry list of requests gave the 2006 Communication a harder edge than any of its predecessors, but it also reflected the new sobriety in Europe concerning certain aspects of China's policies and behavior. The European Council ratified the Communication at its meeting on December 11, 2006, and produced its own 23-point list of observations and concerns about the relationship.
These documents took China's government and Europe Watchers by surprise. Both the tone and substance of the documents reflected a departure from the effusive rhetoric and lofty goals set forth in previous Communications, and led some notable Chinese Europe Watchers in Beijing to accuse Brussels of adopting confrontational or "containment" policies similar to what they sometimes perceive from the United States. Privately, Chinese Foreign Ministry officials apparently assured their official European counterparts that they "understood" European concerns and were not overly alarmed by the tone or the substance of the Communication. The Chinese decision to move ahead with negotiations on a new EU-PRC Partnership & Cooperation Agreement, and the warm reception given EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner in launching the negotiations in January 2007, are perhaps indicative of the more pragmatic official reaction. Nonetheless, the EU documents do reflect a change in tone, substance, and approach to China from past precedent.
Shaping the Future of Sino-European Relations
Looking to the future, what variables will likely shape EU policy towards China? Six sets of variables can be identified.
The first is the impact of trade on the European economies and workforce. With an EU trade deficit with China in excess of 150 billion in 2006 (total China-EU trade topped ?260 billion in 2006), high unemployment rates in several countries (especially France, Germany, and Italy), hollowed-out tertiary industries (particularly in the Mediterranean countries), and relative lack of competitiveness in the "New 12" Central European member states, European economies are increasingly feeling the "China factor." Thus far, it has not gotten the political traction that it has in the United States, but voices of concern and protectionism can be heard across the continent. European Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson has publicly indicated, on a number of occasions, that these economic concerns can quickly snowball and possibly have a series of negative consequences-economically and politically.
The second variable is the degree of Chinese responsiveness to the numerous issues of concern noted in the 2006 Communication. These are not demands, but they are more than "markers." They are serious requests put forward by the European side, in the spirit of partnership, to advance the China-Europe relationship. To be sure, China has its requests too-notably lifting the arms embargo and granting of Market Economy Status-that the EU needs to take seriously and be responsive to.
The third variable concerns relations between the EU member states and the European Commission and Council, and between the European Parliament and the Commission/Council. Prior to the release of the 2006 Communication on China it was apparent that civil society, the China expert community, and NGOs in several member states were unsettled and discontent with the European Commission's ambitious and optimistic view of China. Many accused the Commission of being naïve. The manner in which the EU Commission and Council (mis)handled the arms embargo issue, creating an intra-European and transatlantic policy fiasco, only emboldened the critics of Brussels' China policy.
It seems that the European Commission seriously reflected on this subterranean discontent between 2004 and 2006, undertook a rethinking of the relationship and a reexamination of Europe's interests, and incorporated its findings in the new 2006 Communication. This, it would be assumed, will better position the Commission and Council with the member states, but also with voices heard in the European Parliament. As a result, China's "free ride" in Europe may be over.
A fourth factor that will shape Europe's policy towards, and relations with, China will be the pace and scope of internal reforms in China. The European Union has invested heavily-politically, financially, and rhetorically-in assisting China in a wide range of reforms. This has been the core of the EU's approach to China and what sets the EU apart from the United States and other nations in its dealings with China. The EU has viewed China primarily through the prism of a developing country and transitional nation-in the midst of multiple reforms aimed at marketizing the economy, globalizing the society, and pluralizing the polity. In these reforms, Europeans believe they have much to share with China-given their own histories as welfare states and, more recently, the transition from socialist systems in Central Europe. This orientation differs markedly from the American approach to the "rise of China" -as Americans tend to be exclusively concerned about the external manifestations of China's rise, while Europeans seem more concerned about its internal conditions.
Fifth, Europe now expects more from China in terms of contributing to global governance. This is made clear in the 2006 Communication. The EU welcomes China's recent contributions to UN peacekeeping operations (PKO), to UN reform, to non-proliferation, to resolving the North Korean nuclear crisis, and generally Beijing's new diplomatic activism. But, at the same time, the EU is deeply concerned about China's support for non-democratic states and its "value-free diplomacy" and "no strings attached" aid programs with such states, particularly in Africa and with Myanmar (Burma). Similarly, the EU is closely monitoring Beijing's worldwide quest for energy resources and raw materials. China may not yet be a global power, but it is increasingly a global actor. As such, Europe (and other nations) will be looking to Beijing to help address many of challenges and crises that afflict the international order.
The sixth variable affecting European policies towards China is the American factor and the new role that relations with China play in the transatlantic relationship. One positive side-effect of the arms embargo imbroglio has been that a greater appreciation of China-Europe relations began to take hold in the U.S. government and, concomitantly, a greater sensitivity and appreciation of U.S.-China relations and U.S. security commitments in East Asia developed in Brussels and other European capitals. As such, the "China factor" is now lodged more deeply in transatlantic relations. There now exists considerable consensus and broad agreement now between the U.S. and EU on a range of issues pertaining to China. It is apparent that the commonalities across the Atlantic concerning China far outweigh any differences.
Learning to Live with Complexity
The Sino-European relationship and "strategic partnership" remains an important one in world affairs and is, on the whole, a very positive one. Nonetheless, despite all the positives, it is also evident that the relationship has begun to emerge from its "honeymoon" phase. Thus far, none of these adjustments have been too wrenching, causing more minor tactical adaptations on both sides.
It is also evident that the changed-more sober-climate in relations since late last year comes primarily from the European side. In fact, when one reviews the rapid progress in relations over the 1995-2005 decade, it is evident that the EU had been the catalytic force in the relationship and played the role of ardent suitor. Brussels pursued Beijing more than vice versa. But, similarly, the lust seems to have begun to wear off more quickly on the European side. Going forward, the two sides will need to lower their expectations somewhat; clarify their rosy rhetoric; learn how to live with, narrow, or manage their differences; and develop the mechanisms to build a truly sustainable long-term marriage. Occasional frictions are to be expected, but the strong bonds and mutual interests will drive China and Europe closer and closer together over time.
David Shambaugh, Professor and Director, China Policy Program, Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies
_____
After a decade of rosy rhetoric and steadily improving ties, China-Europe relations entered a more complicated phase. While the relationship between China and Europe has developed remarkably quickly and broadly since 1995, it now seems that the relationship may be passing from the "honeymoon" phase into the "marriage" phase of the relationship. Both parties are beginning to realize the complexities of the relationship, the fact that they do not see many issues identically, that outside factors and actors contribute to shaping the relationship-but that mutual areas of common interest and cooperation remain substantial and dominant.
The release in October 2006 of the European Commission's latest official "Communication" on China, and the accompanying policy paper on EU-China trade and investment, signaled and made explicit many of the concerns about China that had been bubbling beneath the surface in Europe. In the Communication, for the first time in such a policy document, the European Commission made a number of requests of China.
* "open its markets and ensure fair market competition";
* "reduce and eliminate trade and non-tariff barriers";
* "level the [commercial] playing field";
* "fully implement WTO obligations";
* "better protect intellectual property rights";
* "end forced technology transfers";
* "stop granting prohibited subsidies";
* "work on clean energy technologies";
* "be a more active and responsible energy partner";
* "ensure balance in science and technology cooperation";
* "[recognize] the international responsibilities commensurate to its economic importance and role as a permanent member of the UN Security Council";
* "better protect human rights";
* "[ensure] more accountable government";
* be more "results oriented with higher quality exchanges and concrete results" in the human rights dialogue;
* ratify the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
* enter into formal dialogue with the EU and "improve transparency" concerning aid policies in Africa;
* "maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait";
* improve "transparency on military expenditures and objectives";
* "comply with all non-proliferation and disarmament treaties";
* "strengthen export controls of WMD-related materials".
This laundry list of requests gave the 2006 Communication a harder edge than any of its predecessors, but it also reflected the new sobriety in Europe concerning certain aspects of China's policies and behavior. The European Council ratified the Communication at its meeting on December 11, 2006, and produced its own 23-point list of observations and concerns about the relationship.
These documents took China's government and Europe Watchers by surprise. Both the tone and substance of the documents reflected a departure from the effusive rhetoric and lofty goals set forth in previous Communications, and led some notable Chinese Europe Watchers in Beijing to accuse Brussels of adopting confrontational or "containment" policies similar to what they sometimes perceive from the United States. Privately, Chinese Foreign Ministry officials apparently assured their official European counterparts that they "understood" European concerns and were not overly alarmed by the tone or the substance of the Communication. The Chinese decision to move ahead with negotiations on a new EU-PRC Partnership & Cooperation Agreement, and the warm reception given EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner in launching the negotiations in January 2007, are perhaps indicative of the more pragmatic official reaction. Nonetheless, the EU documents do reflect a change in tone, substance, and approach to China from past precedent.
Shaping the Future of Sino-European Relations
Looking to the future, what variables will likely shape EU policy towards China? Six sets of variables can be identified.
The first is the impact of trade on the European economies and workforce. With an EU trade deficit with China in excess of 150 billion in 2006 (total China-EU trade topped ?260 billion in 2006), high unemployment rates in several countries (especially France, Germany, and Italy), hollowed-out tertiary industries (particularly in the Mediterranean countries), and relative lack of competitiveness in the "New 12" Central European member states, European economies are increasingly feeling the "China factor." Thus far, it has not gotten the political traction that it has in the United States, but voices of concern and protectionism can be heard across the continent. European Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson has publicly indicated, on a number of occasions, that these economic concerns can quickly snowball and possibly have a series of negative consequences-economically and politically.
The second variable is the degree of Chinese responsiveness to the numerous issues of concern noted in the 2006 Communication. These are not demands, but they are more than "markers." They are serious requests put forward by the European side, in the spirit of partnership, to advance the China-Europe relationship. To be sure, China has its requests too-notably lifting the arms embargo and granting of Market Economy Status-that the EU needs to take seriously and be responsive to.
The third variable concerns relations between the EU member states and the European Commission and Council, and between the European Parliament and the Commission/Council. Prior to the release of the 2006 Communication on China it was apparent that civil society, the China expert community, and NGOs in several member states were unsettled and discontent with the European Commission's ambitious and optimistic view of China. Many accused the Commission of being naïve. The manner in which the EU Commission and Council (mis)handled the arms embargo issue, creating an intra-European and transatlantic policy fiasco, only emboldened the critics of Brussels' China policy.
It seems that the European Commission seriously reflected on this subterranean discontent between 2004 and 2006, undertook a rethinking of the relationship and a reexamination of Europe's interests, and incorporated its findings in the new 2006 Communication. This, it would be assumed, will better position the Commission and Council with the member states, but also with voices heard in the European Parliament. As a result, China's "free ride" in Europe may be over.
A fourth factor that will shape Europe's policy towards, and relations with, China will be the pace and scope of internal reforms in China. The European Union has invested heavily-politically, financially, and rhetorically-in assisting China in a wide range of reforms. This has been the core of the EU's approach to China and what sets the EU apart from the United States and other nations in its dealings with China. The EU has viewed China primarily through the prism of a developing country and transitional nation-in the midst of multiple reforms aimed at marketizing the economy, globalizing the society, and pluralizing the polity. In these reforms, Europeans believe they have much to share with China-given their own histories as welfare states and, more recently, the transition from socialist systems in Central Europe. This orientation differs markedly from the American approach to the "rise of China" -as Americans tend to be exclusively concerned about the external manifestations of China's rise, while Europeans seem more concerned about its internal conditions.
Fifth, Europe now expects more from China in terms of contributing to global governance. This is made clear in the 2006 Communication. The EU welcomes China's recent contributions to UN peacekeeping operations (PKO), to UN reform, to non-proliferation, to resolving the North Korean nuclear crisis, and generally Beijing's new diplomatic activism. But, at the same time, the EU is deeply concerned about China's support for non-democratic states and its "value-free diplomacy" and "no strings attached" aid programs with such states, particularly in Africa and with Myanmar (Burma). Similarly, the EU is closely monitoring Beijing's worldwide quest for energy resources and raw materials. China may not yet be a global power, but it is increasingly a global actor. As such, Europe (and other nations) will be looking to Beijing to help address many of challenges and crises that afflict the international order.
The sixth variable affecting European policies towards China is the American factor and the new role that relations with China play in the transatlantic relationship. One positive side-effect of the arms embargo imbroglio has been that a greater appreciation of China-Europe relations began to take hold in the U.S. government and, concomitantly, a greater sensitivity and appreciation of U.S.-China relations and U.S. security commitments in East Asia developed in Brussels and other European capitals. As such, the "China factor" is now lodged more deeply in transatlantic relations. There now exists considerable consensus and broad agreement now between the U.S. and EU on a range of issues pertaining to China. It is apparent that the commonalities across the Atlantic concerning China far outweigh any differences.
Learning to Live with Complexity
The Sino-European relationship and "strategic partnership" remains an important one in world affairs and is, on the whole, a very positive one. Nonetheless, despite all the positives, it is also evident that the relationship has begun to emerge from its "honeymoon" phase. Thus far, none of these adjustments have been too wrenching, causing more minor tactical adaptations on both sides.
It is also evident that the changed-more sober-climate in relations since late last year comes primarily from the European side. In fact, when one reviews the rapid progress in relations over the 1995-2005 decade, it is evident that the EU had been the catalytic force in the relationship and played the role of ardent suitor. Brussels pursued Beijing more than vice versa. But, similarly, the lust seems to have begun to wear off more quickly on the European side. Going forward, the two sides will need to lower their expectations somewhat; clarify their rosy rhetoric; learn how to live with, narrow, or manage their differences; and develop the mechanisms to build a truly sustainable long-term marriage. Occasional frictions are to be expected, but the strong bonds and mutual interests will drive China and Europe closer and closer together over time.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Honoring the Dalai Lama
(International Herald Tribune editorial published Oct. 18)
It is a given that whenever the Dalai Lama is honored in the West, China's Communist leaders lash out in fury. It happened when the Tibetan spiritual leader was received by German Chancellor Angela Merkel last month, and it happened again this week when the Dalai Lama was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal and was received by President George W. Bush. It is our hope that free nations will continue to defy China's faux indignation, and that by honoring the Dalai Lama they will add to pressures on Beijing to open serious talks about granting Tibet the autonomy he seeks for his people.
Since he fled Tibet, when China crushed an uprising there in 1959, the Dalai Lama, who is venerated as the 14th reincarnation of the spiritual leader of Tibet, has remained a powerful symbol of Tibet's resistance to China's suppression of its unique culture. In Beijing-speak, the Dalai Lama is a "splittist," someone out to split off a chunk of China. Zhang Qingli, the Chinese party boss in Tibet, denounced the Dalai Lama before the Communist Party's current National Congress as "a person who basely splits his motherland and doesn't even love his motherland."
The fact is that the Dalai Lama does love his motherland - Tibet - and is not trying to split it away from China. In intermittent talks with the Chinese, his envoys have made clear that they do not seek sovereignty, but rather a measure of cultural and religious autonomy.
We would like to think that the 72-year-old spiritual leader's life-long dedication to nonviolence, kindness, and tolerance might rub off on some of the people he meets in Washington. "Through violence, you may solve one problem, but you sow the seeds for another," is one of his statements that politicians in Washington might meditate upon. Or this: "The world has become so small that no nation can solve its problems alone, in isolation from others."
There's no reason to believe that Beijing would really imperil its relations with the United States or Europe over the Dalai Lama. In any case, China's new-found wealth is no reason to abet its colonization of Tibet. On the contrary, that wealth should give China's leaders the self-confidence and maturity to respect and encourage the uniqueness of this ancient land and the wisdom of its spiritual ruler.
It is a given that whenever the Dalai Lama is honored in the West, China's Communist leaders lash out in fury. It happened when the Tibetan spiritual leader was received by German Chancellor Angela Merkel last month, and it happened again this week when the Dalai Lama was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal and was received by President George W. Bush. It is our hope that free nations will continue to defy China's faux indignation, and that by honoring the Dalai Lama they will add to pressures on Beijing to open serious talks about granting Tibet the autonomy he seeks for his people.
Since he fled Tibet, when China crushed an uprising there in 1959, the Dalai Lama, who is venerated as the 14th reincarnation of the spiritual leader of Tibet, has remained a powerful symbol of Tibet's resistance to China's suppression of its unique culture. In Beijing-speak, the Dalai Lama is a "splittist," someone out to split off a chunk of China. Zhang Qingli, the Chinese party boss in Tibet, denounced the Dalai Lama before the Communist Party's current National Congress as "a person who basely splits his motherland and doesn't even love his motherland."
The fact is that the Dalai Lama does love his motherland - Tibet - and is not trying to split it away from China. In intermittent talks with the Chinese, his envoys have made clear that they do not seek sovereignty, but rather a measure of cultural and religious autonomy.
We would like to think that the 72-year-old spiritual leader's life-long dedication to nonviolence, kindness, and tolerance might rub off on some of the people he meets in Washington. "Through violence, you may solve one problem, but you sow the seeds for another," is one of his statements that politicians in Washington might meditate upon. Or this: "The world has become so small that no nation can solve its problems alone, in isolation from others."
There's no reason to believe that Beijing would really imperil its relations with the United States or Europe over the Dalai Lama. In any case, China's new-found wealth is no reason to abet its colonization of Tibet. On the contrary, that wealth should give China's leaders the self-confidence and maturity to respect and encourage the uniqueness of this ancient land and the wisdom of its spiritual ruler.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Freedom House Condemns U.S. Support of China on Taiwan UN Bid
Washington, D.C.
September 10, 2007
U.S. pressure on Taiwan to call off plans for a national referendum on applying for a seat at the United Nations is inconsistent with its commitment to the promotion of democracy and freedom, Freedom House said today.
The U.S. joined the People’s Republic of China in appealing to Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian not to hold a proposed referendum on whether Taiwan should continue to seek membership at the United Nations. Taiwan’s most recent application for a seat alongside China at the U.N. was rejected in July.
“The U.S., as one of Taiwan’s few strong allies, has made it clear that it wants to maintain the status quo and prevent a provocation of Chinese military action against Taiwan,” said Jennifer Windsor, executive director of Freedom House. “However, it has no business in joining with China to bully the Taiwanese people--who have demonstrated their commitment to democracy--away from peacefully expressing their desire to occupy a seat at the United Nations.”
“The message being sent by President Bush, first in accepting the invitation of Chinese President Hu Jintao to attend the Beijing Olympics, and now in joining China to suppress Taiwan’s democratic aspirations, is that the spread of democracy and freedom is not a priority when it offends a large powerful country,” she added.
Taiwan, which broke away from China in 1949, now boasts both strong democratic credentials and a vibrant economy. An electoral democracy, with a free press and strong civil liberties, Taiwan currently maintains the world’s 18th largest economy and is the 10th largest trading partner to the European Union. However, as a result of pressure by China, which considers Taiwan to be a part of its territory, only 24 nations currently recognize Taiwan as an independent country. The U.S. dropped its diplomatic recognition of Taiwan in 1979, when it established diplomatic relations with China, although it has remained a strong ally and has pledged to defend Taiwan from Chinese military intervention.
Taiwan has sent applications to join the United Nations for the past 15 years and has been denied each time. The proposed referendum on UN membership is slated for March 2008 to coincide with upcoming presidential elections.
Taiwan is rated Free in the 2007 edition of the organization’s annual survey, Freedom in the World, with a rating of 2 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being best) for political rights and a 1 for civil liberties.
Freedom House is an independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom around the world.
September 10, 2007
U.S. pressure on Taiwan to call off plans for a national referendum on applying for a seat at the United Nations is inconsistent with its commitment to the promotion of democracy and freedom, Freedom House said today.
The U.S. joined the People’s Republic of China in appealing to Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian not to hold a proposed referendum on whether Taiwan should continue to seek membership at the United Nations. Taiwan’s most recent application for a seat alongside China at the U.N. was rejected in July.
“The U.S., as one of Taiwan’s few strong allies, has made it clear that it wants to maintain the status quo and prevent a provocation of Chinese military action against Taiwan,” said Jennifer Windsor, executive director of Freedom House. “However, it has no business in joining with China to bully the Taiwanese people--who have demonstrated their commitment to democracy--away from peacefully expressing their desire to occupy a seat at the United Nations.”
“The message being sent by President Bush, first in accepting the invitation of Chinese President Hu Jintao to attend the Beijing Olympics, and now in joining China to suppress Taiwan’s democratic aspirations, is that the spread of democracy and freedom is not a priority when it offends a large powerful country,” she added.
Taiwan, which broke away from China in 1949, now boasts both strong democratic credentials and a vibrant economy. An electoral democracy, with a free press and strong civil liberties, Taiwan currently maintains the world’s 18th largest economy and is the 10th largest trading partner to the European Union. However, as a result of pressure by China, which considers Taiwan to be a part of its territory, only 24 nations currently recognize Taiwan as an independent country. The U.S. dropped its diplomatic recognition of Taiwan in 1979, when it established diplomatic relations with China, although it has remained a strong ally and has pledged to defend Taiwan from Chinese military intervention.
Taiwan has sent applications to join the United Nations for the past 15 years and has been denied each time. The proposed referendum on UN membership is slated for March 2008 to coincide with upcoming presidential elections.
Taiwan is rated Free in the 2007 edition of the organization’s annual survey, Freedom in the World, with a rating of 2 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being best) for political rights and a 1 for civil liberties.
Freedom House is an independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom around the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)