|
EDITORIAL:
Cross-strait human rights dilemma
The most intriguing part of Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng’s (陳光誠) trip to
Taiwan so far was his brief visit to the legislature on Tuesday. Lawmakers
tangled and disagreed on the podium, but chanted in sync to welcome Chen,
without leaving their positions.
When later asked, Chen said he loved it because that was what democracy is all
about — there will never be only one voice.
The 41-year-old activist, who fled China for the US last year, had this short,
yet powerful message to Taiwanese: “It is better to have fighting in parliament
than to see tanks on the streets,” referring to China’s 1989 Tiananmen Square
Massacre, during which Beijing used tanks to suppress protesters.
“If Hong Kong fails to transplant the rule of law to China, Beijing will
eventually bring the rule of man to Hong Kong. If Taiwan does not help
democratize China, the authoritarian system of government will someday return to
intimidate Taiwan,” Chen said.
A maturing democracy such as Taiwan’s needs people like Chen, who pray that
someday democracy will take root in China and has risked his life to realize
that dream.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who always says he upholds universal rights and
values, declined to meet the activist. The same goes for Chinese Nationalist
Party (KMT) lawmakers, who, with the exception of Apollo Chen (陳學聖), all avoided
meeting Chen at the legislature.
While no one is obligated to meet the Chinese dissident, the absence of these
politicians, including former premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) of the Democratic
Progressive Party (DPP), suggests a hidden political calculation — they fear
antagonizing Beijing.
Like elsewhere in the world, meetings between political leaders and Chinese
dissidents are a benchmark of how politicians keep a balance between supporting
human rights and political interaction with Beijing.
However, let us not dwell on who Chen has and has not met. The activist’s
landmark visit serves as a reminder to Taiwanese how the nation’s hard-won
democracy can serve to inspire Chinese more than we could have imagined and why
Taiwanese political parties must differentiate between the government in Beijing
and the 1.3 billion Chinese.
The arrival of Chen, who had to endure harassment, torture and imprisonment for
his advocacy of human rights in China, reminds Taiwanese of the martyrs who
sacrificed their freedom and lives during the White Terror era for democracy,
but were never able to enjoy the recognition that Chen has received. Most remain
relatively unknown to this day.
Meanwhile, the focus on human rights has coincided with proposals initiated by
Taiwan Democracy Watch, an academic group which advocates human rights as the
foundation of cross-strait engagement, and a group of DPP politicians, who
called on the party to initiate a resolution on cross-strait human rights
exchanges, as well as DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang’s (蘇貞昌) pledge that the DPP
would not only engage with the Chinese Communist Party regime, but also Chinese
civic groups.
Chen’s support of China’s “one country, two systems” formula stirred up
controversy until it became clear that what he in fact supports is Chinese
people’s right to choose between a democracy and authoritarianism.
Now, a new debate has broken out among Taiwanese after Chinese media criticized
Chen, suggesting that making human rights the basis of cross-strait engagement
would lead to a fragile cross-strait relationship.
That leads to another question: Are human rights and politics separate issues in
terms of the cross-strait relationship?
People on both sides of the Taiwan Strait await the answer.
|
