by Song Tiongjong
Translated by Li Thian-hok


Human Rights are Universal Rights Shared

by All Mankind
    In  recent  years  concern  for  human  rights  problems  has
heightened  and policies  of guaranteeing  human rights are being
developed.  However, this development is due to the leadership of
the advanced countries.  Not all developing  nations are actively
dealing with human rights problems.

    When the world human rights conference was convened in Vienna
in 1993, the advanced  nations asserted  that "human rights are a
universal  concept  applicable  to the whole of mankind," but the
developing  nations opposed this position, saying "the concept of
human  rights  varies  by region."  For historical  events  which
caused considerable  progress  in human rights, one could mention
the American  Revolution  and the French  Revolution  in the 18th
century.

    The American Declaration  of Independence  of 1776 states: We
hold  these  truths  to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that  they  are  endowed  by their  Creator  with  certain
unalienable  rights, that among these  are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. That to secure these right, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent
of the governed.

    Also, in  the  midst  of the  French  Revolution, the  French
constitutional  convention  adopted in 1789 the "Declaration  of
Human and Citizens' Rights," which states:

    Men  are born  and exist  free  and with  equal  rights.  The
purpose of all political unions is to preserve men's inalienable
natural rights. These rights are freedom, ownership, security and
opposition to repression. All principles of sovereignty reside in
the citizens.  Liberty means the ability essentially  to take any
actions without hurting others.

    In these two Declarations  human rights are deemed  universal
rights shared by the whole of mankind.  However, the infringement
of human rights such as discrimination  against races and nation-
alities  continued  for  many  years  both  in  post-independence
America and in post-revolutionary France.

    In the colonies, the ruler and the subjugated were divided by
nationality, and the notion  of universal  human rights  was com-
pletely  ignored.  The height  of imperialism, when  the advanced
nations colonized  most of Asia and Africa, was at the end of the
19th century, one century  after  American  Independence  and the
French Revolution.

    In the 20th century, human rights  were mercilessly  violated
in various  regions  of the  world  due to wars  and disturbances
(including  the two World  Wars) and  the  advent  of dictatorial
regimes with credos of class discrimination or racial discrimina-
tion.

    It was only after World  War II that the notion  of universal
human rights became widespread based on retrospective understand-
ing of the grievous historical reality.

    The Universal Declaration  of Human Rights was adopted by the
UN General  Assembly  in 1948.  The preamble  of this Declaration
states:
    ...recognition  of the inherent  dignity and of the equal and
inalienable  rights  of all members  of the human  family  is the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world....

    It was declared that the affirmation  of human rights as uni-
versal   rights  common   to  all  mankind,  regardless   of  any
differences  in race, national origin, religion and class, is the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

    Furthermore,  the  International  Covenant  on  Human  Rights
adopted by the UN General Assembly  in 1966 defined in detail the
substance of human rights and also stipulated the obligations  of
each signatory state to promote the observance of human rights.

    This International  Covenant  on Human Rights is divided into
"International  Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights"
(A Covenant) and "International  Covenant  on Civil and Political
Rights"  (B Covenant).  The  language  in  Article  1 of  both  A
Covenant  and  B Covenant  shows  the  same  "peoples'  right  of
self-determination." Article 1, item 1 is as follows:
    All peoples  have the right of self-determination.  By virtue
of that right they freely determine  their political  status  and
freely  pursue their economic, social  and cultural  development.
Why is the peoples'  right  of self-determination  emphasized  to
this extent? Because if the right of self-determination of people
as  a  group  is  not  secured, then  the  basic  right  of  each
individual in the group will not be secured.

    So let us consider  the historical  origin  of the  right  of
self-determination.


The Right of Self-determination

and the Right to Freedom

    I consider the origin of both the right of self-determination
and the right to freedom to be the same thing.

    The ancient  Greeks were the first to reflect  most deeply on
freedom.  As a result, ancient Greeks considered that nothing was
as important  as freedom  and they invented  a system  of society
called democracy to protect their freedom.

    Why did the ancient  Greeks deliberate  over freedom? Perhaps
because they were constantly exposed to the risk of losing it. At
that time there were several hundred cities (polis) in Greece and
the cities were incessantly at war with one another. The city was
the state for the Greeks  and wars never ceased  due to conflicts
of state interests.  Naturally  there  were occasional  wars with
alien  races  but most  of the  fighting  was  among  the  Greeks
themselves.  When captured  in a war, payment  of a ransom  would
usually bring release.  If unable to pay the ransom, the prisoner
would be sold as a slave.  Thus even a free person couldn't  tell
when he might be reduced to the status of a slave.

    Even among slaves, their circumstances varied. In the case of
Athens, ordinary  families  owned only one or two slaves, so many
of the slaves  lived with the master  or his family.  Some slaves
were treated  as members  of the family by a magnanimous  master.
Many slaves, however, received inhumane treatment.

    For example, slaves who worked  at mines were forced to labor
strenuously  in dangerous underground  shafts.  But quite often a
slave  would  supervise  these  mining  slaves.  A slave  who was
entrusted  by the master  with  the management  of the mine would
rule over many slaves and earn a high income. To do business with
the mine, even a citizen  had to please the managerslave.  Athens
was a commercial metropolis  and also one of the centers of world
trade and businesses  and trades thrived there.  In many cases, a
slave was appointed  to manage  the businesses  and trades.  Such
slaves would control  many other slaves and enjoy good wages.  So
more than a few slaves  were richer  than ordinary  citizens  and
ruled over numerous underlings.

    Observing  such conditions, some citizens  must have  thought
about the difference between themselves and slaves.

    Even in the case of rich and somewhat  powerful  slaves, such
privileges  were given  to them by their master.  When the master
changed  his mind  or when  he was angered, a slave  who had been
acting as a manager  might suddenly  find himself working  in the
mine shaft or be demoted  to a low class laborer  in business  or
trade.  In contrast, a citizen  would  not  have  his life  style
dictated by another even if he was poor.  The ancient Greeks must
have considered  this the dissimilarity  between  slaves and free
men.

    Slaves  have  their  life  style  decided  by  their  master.
Citizens  who can determine  their  own lifestyle  are free  men.
Therefore,   I   believe   the   origins    of   the   right   of
self-determination  and of the right  to freedom  are one and the
same.

    The ancient  Greeks, who considered  having or not having the
right to freedom  as the difference  between free men and slaves,
reasoned  "even the pompous governor of Egypt or Syria who reigns
over tens of thousands of troops and bureaucrats is nothing but a
slave of the great king of Persia."  At that time Egypt and Syria
took pride in their ancient civilizations and were wealthier than
the whole of Greece.  Still  they were just a part of the Persian
empire, then the world's only superpower. No matter how great the
wealth  and power  possessed  by the governors, these were merely
things bestowed  by the great king of Persia.  Once the governors
aroused  the  displeasure  of the great  king, their  heads  were
immediately  chopped  off.  Thus the ancient Greeks called people
who were ruled by a dictator "king's subjects" and despised them,
because  unlike the Greeks  who could determine  their own way of
life as free men, these people were all slaves.

    In order for a people to determine  their own way of life, it
will  be necessary  for them to decide  the laws and policies  of
their country by themselves.  For example, if a country  declares
war on another, its citizens  will be obligated  to serve  in the
armed  forces.  However, if a people  is compelled  to risk their
lives and fight due to a decision made by someone else, then such
people  do not have  the right  of self-determination.  To ensure
their  own right  of self-determination, a people  must  hold  in
their  grasp the right  to decide  on laws and policies  of their
country.  This is why the ancient  Greeks created  the democratic
system.

    Because the ancient Greeks deemed freedom precious  above all
and  were  proud  to be living  as free  men, they  resisted  the
invasion  by  the  superpower  Persia,  proclaiming  "liberty  or
death."  The  Persian  War  was  like  a war  between  a gigantic
elephant and a mouse.  Miraculously the ancient Greeks beat back
the Persian force and won the war.  But for this historical event
democracy  would  have been forgotten  in human history  and the
Europeans  would  not  have  rediscovered   democracy  after  the
Renaissance.


The Need to Delineate Territory is Urgent


    Many Hong Kong residents  have escaped  to foreign  countries
ever since  the decision  was made to return  Hong Kong to China.
Those who have decided  to remain in Hong Kong are in mortal fear
of Hong Kong's  reversion  to China.  When  asked  "what  are you
afraid of?" Hong Kong residents  answer in unison "we worry about
losing  our freedom."  If the ancient  Greeks  had heard  such  a
story, they would  have been surprised  and said: "So you thought
you have had freedom till now? Have you been making by yourselves
the laws of Hong  Kong, which  you must  obey? Haven't  such laws
been  drafted  by England  and  the governor? You  were  not even
involved  in the return  of Hong  Kong  to China, an event  which
would control  your fate.  You people  have been slaves  of Great
Britain.  What  you fear is actually  not a loss  of freedom, but
your transfer from a lenient master to a cruel master."

    The example  of Hong Kong shows vividly that the individual's
right  of self-determination  cannot  be preserved  when a people
does not possess the right of self-determination as a group.  The
Taiwanese  people have been suffering  for 400 years because they
have always  been ruled by alien powers and have not been able to
have the right  of self-determination.  Until  very recently  the
Taiwanese people were slaves of emperors named Chiang Kaishek and
Chiang Chingkuo. But not anymore. The laws and policies of Taiwan
are now being determined  by officials  chosen in free elections.
By their own blood and sweat  over the last several  decades, the
Taiwanese people have won the right of self-determination and are
now free.

    If the Taiwanese  people want to continue  living as free men
then they must protect  and further  develop the hardwon right of
self-determination.

    The greatest  tasks facing Taiwan  today are to be officially
recognized  as an independent  state equal to other countries  of
the world and to be admitted to the international community.

    The  international  community  makes  agreements  in  various
fields based on national units.  That is to say, a group's rights
of  self-determination  are  exercised  in  the  international
community with nations as component units.

    If a country  is unable  to participate  in an  international
agreement affecting  its interests, that country is not free and
it does not possess  a full right  of self-determination.  Such a
country  is not  a fullfledged  independent  state  with  perfect
sovereignty even if it is an independent entity.

    This is exactly  the case  with  Taiwan: Taiwan  has achieved
economic  prosperity  and  has  succeeded  in  democratizing  its
polity.   So  why   is  Taiwan   denied   participation   in  the
international community as a fullfledged independent state?

    Because  Taiwan's  national  sovereignty  is  imperfect.  The
reason  is immediately  clear  when  one looks  at the map of the
Republic  of China.  It includes  the  territory  of the People's
Republic  of China  and  that  of  the  Mongolian  nation.  To be
recognized as a sovereign state, an indispensable precondition is
that the government effectively rules the country.  It is a basic
principle  of international  law that a country  which  does  not
govern at least the main part of its national territory  will not
be recognized as a sovereign state.

    In the international  community, recognition  of the right to
independence   and  the  right  to  equality  is  predicated   on
recognition  as a sovereign state.  The right to independence  is
the right to be recognized as a fullfledged  independent  nation,
eligible to join the international  community as such.  The right
to equality  is the right to be treated  as an equal  independent
state regardless of the size of the country.

    The Kuomintang  regime demands the recognition  of the rights
to independence  and equality for the Republic of China (ROC) and
admission   to  the  United  Nations  and  other  international
organizations  since  ROC  is  a sovereign  state.  But  the  ROC
government  does not rule any part of the Chinese  mainland.  The
Republic  of China  governs  only  a small  part  of its official
territory.  It is logical that the international community  does
not  recognize  ROC  as a sovereign  state  since  it effectively
controls only a small part of the country.

    The ROC regime  blames  China  for its inability  to join the
international community. But this is merely an excuse.

    The international  community is not so devoid of common sense
that  it will keep ignoring  a basic  principle  of international
law. Once Taiwan meets sufficient conditions of a sovereign state
under international  law, the international community will accept
Taiwan.

    It is the ROC regime  itself which is excluding  Taiwan  form
the international  community.  Witness the August 1992 resolution
of National Unification  Committee, Office of the President: "The
sovereignty  of  the  Republic  of China  extends  to all  of the
Chinese mainland." This is tantamount to proclaiming to the world
"the Republic of China is not a sovereign  state." To be accepted
into the international  community, Taiwan  needs to discard  such
nonsensical fiction.  Haven't the leaders of the KMT regime been
emphasizing "the Republic  of China in Taiwan"  recently? What's
needed is to stipulate this in law.

    The Republic of China will fully satisfy the prerequisite  of
a sovereign state by legally stipualating  that "the territory of
the Republic of China is the region presently  being governed  by
the government of the Republic of China."

    Even then the name Republic of China will obstruct its admis-
sion to the international  community  since it includes  the word
China.  This is because  most nations  of the world have declared
"nonrecognition of two Chinas." But this problem can be solved by
merely changing the country's name. There wasn't any problem with
the international  community  when Ceylon changed its name to Sri
Lanka or when Burma became Myanmar.

    What is important is the establishment  of territory based on
reality.  If that is done, the international  community will most
likely be inclined  to accept Taiwan with the condition  that its
state name be changed. At that time few people in Taiwan will say
"to preserve the name of the state we would rather forfeit admis-
sion to the international community. "

    The problem of assuring  Taiwan's security  will be virtually
solved once Taiwan is admitted  into the international  community
as an independent  nation, a peer of the countries  of the world,
because unilateral use of force against a nation, which is recog-
nized as an independent state by the international  community, is
an act of aggression subject to condemnation  and sanction by the
international community.

    The people of Taiwan have won the right of self-determination
through their own efforts, but Taiwan does not yet have the right
of self-determination  as a full-fledged  country.  In order  for
Taiwan  to win the right of self-determination  as a nation equal
to other countries  of the world, the right of self-determination
possessed by each individual resident of Taiwan must be exercised
wisely.

    At  present,  the  most  essential  task  for  Taiwan  is  to
establish  a territorial  boundary  which conforms  to reality as
soon as possible.  It is most important for the people of Taiwan
to pool their strengths and make every effort to that end.