Update: DPRK Institute of International Studies on Development as a Human Right

The following is an update to yesterday’s blogpost on the same North Korean article, but from a different source (Voice of Korea’s German service).
The KCNA article has actually been online since yesterday, although not as prominently as by Voice of Korea who put it right after their daily news bulletin.
As KCNA doesn’t use permalinks, I have copied and pasted their content in English and Chinese, as follows. I’m not aware of the original article’s wording (which can also be found on KCNA’s website), but the English and Chinese versions, with the same content in all paragraphs with about the same emphasis, both adopt a style as seems most fluent in the language they use.

“DMZ – another Chance for Peace”,
a 2019 calendar co-published by
KBS World Radio and the
DMZ Ecology Research Institute,
sponsored by “the CDF of
Korea Communications Commission“

Pyongyang, September 27 (KCNA) — Kim Jin Hui, a researcher of the Institute of International Studies of the DPRK, released the following article:	朝中社平壤９月２７日电　朝鲜国际问题研究院研究员金真姬发表了署名文章。文章内容如下：
Shortly ago, UN human rights experts in a joint statement noted that the U.S. unilateral sanctions seriously impede the economic development and the improvement of people’s living standard in many countries and violate their rights to development, stressing “the right to development is a human right that can not be forfeited.”	前不久，一些联合国人权专家发表联合声明谴责，美国的单方面制裁对许多国家的经济发展和个人生活改善产生严重影响，国家发展权遭受威胁，并强调了“发展权是不可剥夺的人权”这一点。
“The right to development is a human right that can not be forfeited” – this is a definition stipulated in the “declaration of the right to development” adopted at the 41st session of the UN General Assembly on Dec. 4, 1986.	“发展权是不可剥夺的人权”，这是距今３５年前的１９８６年１２月４日召开的第４１届联合国大会上通过的“发展权利宣言”中明文规定的定义。
According to the declaration, the world human rights conference held in June, 1993 adopted the “Vienna declaration and action program” which recognized the right to development as a part of human rights.	根据这一宣言，１９９３年６月召开的世界人权大会通过了承认发展权是人权一部分的《维也纳宣言和行动纲领》。
Despite the lapse of several decades since then, the right to independent development, a due right of a sovereign state, has not been prioritized as a true human right in the international arena but been ruthlessly infringed upon by the U.S. unilateral, illegal and outrageous interference in the internal affairs of other countries.	从此已过数十年，但作为真正人权的主权国家的堂堂权利——自主发展权仍在国际舞台上不被重视，却因美国的单方面非法内政干涉行为一直惨遭蹂躏。
Due to the blockade by the U.S., Cuba has suffered damage amounting to 1 trillion US$ for the past 60-odd years.	６０多年来持续的美国的封锁活动导致古巴遭受竟达１万亿美元的严重的经济损失。
Despite the ever-worsening global health crisis caused by COVID-19, the U.S. pressurized the foreign companies trading with Cuba into refusing to provide the latter with artificial respirators indispensable for treatment of COVID-19 patients last year. Worse still, the U.S. toughened the restrictions on the shipment of supplies to Cuba to badly hurt its public health and people’s life.	美国不顾肆虐全球的大流行传染病事态，去年再次施压与古巴交易往来的外国公司拒绝交付古巴疫情防控所需的制氧机。近期还采取措施极力限制对古货运，对该国保健领域予以严重打击，也对民生造成重大障碍。
The U.S. has stretched out its vicious tentacles to politics, economy, military, culture and even daily life in Venezuela, Syria and other countries, crippling their overall economies and stymieing their normal and peaceful development.	委内瑞拉、叙利亚等诸国的情况也是如此，因为伸向政治、经济、军事、文化乃至民生领域的美国的黑手，整体经济陷入萧条，主权国家的正常和平发展受到严重侵害。
The gravity of the issue lies in the astonishing situation that such ruthless violation of the right to independent development is perpetrated under the pretext of “preserving human rights.”	粗暴蹂躏主权国家自主发展权的此类行径，公然打着“维护人权”的旗号，这就是事态的严重性所在。
The U.S. has trumpeted “human rights” more loudly than any other countries in the world.	世上再也没有像美国那样大谈“人权”的国家。
The U.S. has never missed the chance of criticizing other countries for their “human rights performance”, releasing the “country reports on human rights practices” every year to find fault with other countries as if it were a global human rights judge.	美国一有机会无端指责他国“人权问题”，自封为国际人权判官，每年发表“国别人权报告”，对他国人权状况说三道四。
In July this year the U.S. Department of State set the “promotion of human rights and democracy” as a priority task of the U.S. diplomats in different parts of the world and issued an order to examine all means available for performing the task, thus betraying its sinister intention to more intensively and openly meddle in other countries’ internal affairs through “human rights diplomacy.”	今年７月，美国国务院把“人权和民主增进”提出为被派往世界各国的美国外交官员的优先课题，并指令研讨在执行过程中能够运用的一切手段，从而显露出了要更加露骨地加大通过“人权外交”的内政干涉力度的居心。
No wonder, the U.S. abuses the “human rights issues” for putting political pressure on the anti-imperialist independent countries.	尤其，美国把“人权问题”当做镇压反帝自主国家的政治手段。
Not content with criticizing the legally elected Belarusian government as an illegal one engrossed in “violence and oppression,” the U.S. incites the anti-government forces to rebellion. It also engages in a vicious attempt to make a dent in China’s political stability by taking issue with it over Xinjiang and Hong Kong affairs.	美国污蔑合法选举的白俄罗斯政府为专事“暴力镇压”的非法政府还嫌不够，唆使反政府势力制造内乱；还粗暴干涉中国的新疆和香港事务，企图破坏中国的政治稳定。
All these facts clearly prove once again that “human rights” touted by the U.S. are nothing but a trick to easily realize its wild ambition for dominating the world.	一切事实再次清楚地表明，美国所说的“人权”老调只不过是企图轻易实现其称霸世界野心的诡计。
The U.S. is the most heinous human rights abuser in the world that severely disturbs the normal and peaceful development of sovereign states under the pretext of “human rights”.	美国就是打着“人权”旗号，严重阻碍主权国家正常和平发展的世上最可恶的反人权犯罪国家。
Unless the U.S. hypocritical moves under the cloak of “human rights protection” are smashed, it is impossible for each country to achieve its independent development and to build a free, prosperous and new world.	没有粉碎美国虚伪的“维护人权”活动，就不能实现每个国家的自主发展，更不能建设自由繁荣的新世界。
Now many countries resolutely stand against the U.S. human rights farce for curbing their development.	目前，许多国家坚决抗衡阻碍本国发展的美国的人权侵害行径。
The U.S. “human rights protection” racket is bound to end in vain. -0-	美国的“维护人权”活动势必遭到失败。（完）

____________

Related

Xi Jinping’s Korea War speech, Nov 2, 2020
____________

“Voice of Korea” comments on the “Path to the Development of Choice” as a Human Right

North Korean foreign radio’s German service read out an article concerning human rights on Monday. As I haven’t found it online yet, I’ve translated it into English to post it here.
This will be a rather unreliable translation as the broadcast was on shortwave, and I may have misread one or another passage of it.

This starts with the author’s name itself. “Kim Jin-ji”^*) is my phonetic perception only. The German language makes a difference between male researchers (Forscher) and female researchers (Forscherin). Based on the language used by Voice of Korea, Kim is a female researcher.

But first, some (likely) context to make sense of the North Korean broadcast.

From the South: KBS World Radio, broadcasting in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Spanish, and Vietnamese

Earlier this month, South Korean foreign radio’s (KBS World Radio), in its weekly program on North Korean issues,  touched upon the United Nations general assembly session, scheduled to begin on September 14. The North Korean nuclear issue and North Korean human rights issues were expected to be major topics there, according to KBS.

UN secretary general António Guterres had presented a report in August, on the situation in North Korea, KBS said, and he had shown concern about North Korean prevention measures against COVID-19 that could affect the country’s food security. The UN member states were likely to make another call for resolving the nuclear issue.

Against this background, KBS took a closer look at the criticism of North Korea of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. The article read out by Voice of Korea today isn’t related to Afghanistan, but appears to follow the same script.

As far as North Korea’s criticism of America’s Afghanistan policies are concerned, KBS quoted political commentator Choi Young-il:

In the wake of the Afghan incident, the international community denounces the U.S. in light of human rights concerns. This is a great opportunity for North Korea to counterattack. By bringing up the human rights issue involving the U.S. preemptively, the North is condemning the U.S.

and

Countries in hostile relations with the U.S. blame the U.S. for the crisis in Afghanistan and mention the human rights issue. North Korea is moving fast to join them. It might feel pleased to attack the U.S. with no other than the human rights issue, but it has nothing to gain practically by doing so. By using this issue, North Korea may want to create a communication channel with the U.S. Also, it wants to tell the U.S. that North Korea is different from Afghanistan and the U.S. cannot deal with the North in the same way it handled Afghanistan. Pyongyang probably wants to say that it is a nuclear weapons state and it is far more powerful than Afghanistan, so the U.S. should negotiate with the North on an equal footing.

Nothing to gain? In fact, by criticizing the U.S., North Korea may not only draw some (desired) attention from Washington, but it may also be able to become part of a broader front against Western or international sanctions. There may be some common denominators that may be rather easily found between Pyongyang and the rest of the world, such as a rather negative take on Afghanistan, or on the nefarious American blockade of Cuba. Emphasizing indignation shared with otherwise distant countries may provide icebreakers to soften North Korea’s international isolation.

From the North: Voice of Korea, broadcasting in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Japanese, Korean, Russian, and Spanish

Now, here is Monday’s readout by the Voice of Korea’s German service (my translation into English).

Kim Jin-ji Kim Jin Hui^*), researcher at the Institute for International Issues, published an article titled “The Inhumane Crimes that obstruct the Path to the Development of Choice”. The article says,
Not long ago, the UN human-rights experts issued a joint declaration. They claimed that by the unilateral sanctions of the U.S., the economic development of many countries and the improvement of individual lives were sharply affected and that the states’ development rights were harmed. They emphasized that development rights were a human right that nobody was allowed to rob. Development right is a human right that must not be robbed. This definition was in the proclamation about development right that was passed on December 4, 1986, at the 41rst UN general assembly.
After this declaration, the World Human Rights Congress in June 1993 adopted the Vienna Declaration that recognized development right as a category of human rights.

Dozens of years have passed since, but in the international arena, the right of the development of choice, a dignified right of the independent state, isn’t cherished as a true human right.
On the contrary, they were seriously harmed by the unilateral and illegal interference of the USA into the internal affairs of other countries. By more than sixty-year-long blockade of the USA, Cuba suffered enormous economic damage of more than a trillion U.S. dollars. Despite the global spread of COVID-19, the U.S. once more pressurized foreign companies trading with Cuba and made them refuse supplies of oxygen machinery that are necessary for treatment of the malign disease. Recently, they have adopted maximum measures for the restriction on goods supplies to Cuba which was a heavy blow to Cuba’s health system and which has created great difficulties for the peoples’ lives. In other countries, too, like Venezuela and Syria, the evil influence of the USA on politics, economics, military, culture and even everyday life stalls the entire economy and seriously impedes the normal and peaceful development of the [unreadable] state.

Great concern is caused by the fact that such actions that gravely harm the right of independent states on the development path of their choice are committed exactly under the guise of protecting human rights. The U.S. are a country that read most loudly about human rights. On every occasion, they make unfounded accusations of violations of human rights against the other countries, and publish an annual report on the human rights situation of the countries as if they were an international human-rights judge. There, they give negative accounts of the human-rights situations in other countries. In July of this year, the U.S. department of state made promotion of human rights and democracy the number-one duty of the U.S. diplomats in many countries of the world and gave instruction to take all kinds of means to their achievement into consideration. Thus, the Americans revealed their dark intention to interfere even more strongly and more openly into other countries’ internal affairs. In particular, they consider the human rights issue a means of political pressur on anti-imperialist and [unreadable] countries. They refer to the legitimate Belarusian government as an illegal regime busy with reprisals and repression, and incite anti-government forces’ internal insurgency.

They also like to mention the issues of Xinjiang and Hong Kong in China, and try to destroy this country’s social stability. All facts show clearly that the vocal human-rights campaign of the USA is just a ruse to easily achieve their global-rule ambitions. It is exactly the USA who are the greatest violators of human rights worldwide that, under the guise of human rights, seriously impede the normal and peaceful development of the [unreadable] states. If the hypocritical ploys of the USA for the protection of human rights aren’t thwarted, neither sovereign development of the countries nor the building of a free and flourishing world can be expected.

Many countries take firm action against the human rights violations of the USA that impede their development. The ploys of the USA for the protection of human rights will certainly be thwarted.

____________

Updates/Corrections

^*) Her name is Kim Jin Hui – her article as translated into English and Chinese by KCNA news agency can be found there.
____________

Related

“Old lessons learned in Washington”, Sept 6, 2017
____________

A second Term for President Tsai Ing-wen

我也要向大家保證，絕對不會因為勝利，就忘記了反省。過去這四年，我們有成績，但是也有不足的地方。台灣人民願意再給我們四年，我們會把做不夠的、來不及做的，做得更好、做得更多。

I promise that I will not stop reflecting and improving after winning this election. We have made progress over the past four years, but we also have our shortcomings. Now that the Taiwanese people have given us four more years, we will do more and be better, to make up for areas where we fell short or have not yet finished our work.

____________

Related

Re-elected, not just for being tough in China, NY Times, Jan 12, 2020
Written English version, CNA (Focus Taiwan), January 11, 2020

Double-Ten 2019: Tsai’s speech, Han’s white paper

–

1. President’s speech

President Tsai Ing-wen’s national day speech is available

• • in Chinese and
  • in English

Among other issues, she rejected the “one country, two systems” concept advocated by Beijing.

Former president Ma Ying-jeou (2008 – 2016) and former vice president Lü Hsiu-lien (Anette Lü, 2000 – 2008) attended the event.

–

Han Kuo Yu’s white paper

KMT presidential candidate (and Kaohsiung mayor) Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) gave a speech at a flag-raising ceremony in Kaohsiung on October 9.

Han has also announced a white paper concerning relations with mainland China. The KMT’s “92 consensus” (九二共識) is believed to feature prominently in Han’s policies (as it has in former president Ma Ying-jeou’s), and the paper is also excpected to state “the defense of the Republic of China’s sovereignty”, “under the precondition of “one China with different interpretations” (一中各表).

While the “92 consensus” has long been disputed in Taiwan anyway (including the question if Beijing actually ever recognized such a consensus, or if it has been a KMT fantasy all along), Beijing’s more recent demands – “one country, two systems” to include Taiwan – mean that either way, a KMT president would be at odds with Beijing, just as is the current Tsai administration.

Belarus, Russia: together, but not THAT together (yet)

The following is a translation of a Guanchazhe newsarticle, published on February 23.

Main Link: Lukashenko: no Merger with Russia at any Time

News bubbled last week that “Belarussian president has agreed to a merger with Russia”. It also caused a former NATO secretary‘s “concern”, who demanded on that occasion that Belarus protect itself against “Russian threats.”

“白俄罗斯总统同意与俄罗斯合并”的消息上周传得沸沸扬扬，还引来了北约前秘书长的“关怀”，借此要求白俄罗斯保护自己免受“俄罗斯威胁”。

Belarussian president Lukashenko personally rebuked the rumor on February 22, stating the importance of national sovereignty and independence. He also said that as president, he would not merge Belarus into another country at any time.

对于这一传言，白俄罗斯总统卢卡申科2月22日亲自辟谣，他重申了国家主权和独立的重要性，并表示作为总统，任何时候都不会将白俄罗斯并入他国。

According to the Belarussian president’s press office on February 22, Lukashenko said on that day, while inspecting the Military Academy of Belarus and having exchanges with the academy’s teachers and students, that “national sovereignty and independence are the most important achievements we have made now. To have become the first president of this sovereign and independent state is something that makes me proud and happy.”

据白俄罗斯总统新闻局22日消息，卢卡申科当天在视察白俄罗斯共和国军事学院并与该学院师生进行交流时表示：“主权和独立是我们当今取得的最重要成就，我为能成为这个主权国家的第一任总统感到骄傲和高兴。”

Concerning speculation abroad that Belarus could merge into Russia, Lukashenko asked back: “What kind of people could allow such things to happen, after having established and lead an independent country? Would you destroy it with your own hands by letting it become part of another country? Poland or Russia? I will never take this road.

对于外界有关白俄罗斯并入俄罗斯的猜测，卢卡申科反问：“什么样的人会在建立和领导独立国家之后，允许这样的事发生？你会亲手去摧毁它，让它成为其他国家的一部分吗？波兰还是俄罗斯？我永远不会走这条路。”

Lukashenko emphasized that he had clear boundaries that he would never cross, among them, as the most important one, that of defending his country’s sovereignty and independence. He appealed not to pay attention to foreign conjectures that Belarus could lose its sovereignty and independence.

卢卡申科强调，自己有明确的不能逾越的界限，其中最重要的界限就是守卫本国的主权与独立。他呼吁，不要去理会外界关于白俄罗斯会失去其主权和独立性的猜测。

However, he said on the same day that “Russia is our important friend. No matter how many contradictions and disputes we may have, we and Russia will always be together.”

不过，他当天也表示：“俄罗斯是我们重要的朋友，无论我们有多少矛盾和争执，我们和俄罗斯永远在一起”。

Before, there had been rumors abroad that “Belarusian president Lukashenko has announced preparations to merge with Russia,” even with people relating that he had said that “tomorrow there can be a merger into Russia, no problem.”

此前，外界曾盛传“白俄罗斯总统卢卡申科宣布准备与俄罗斯合并”一事，甚至有人转述卢卡申科的话说：“明天就可以并入俄罗斯，没问题”。

Guanchazhe online checked on many Russian and Belarusian official media reporting that Lukashenko had not announced a “Belarusian-Russian merger,” but had made a vigorous statement about the two countries’ union (Guanchazhe note: the original word was объединение, meaning union or unification, translated as integration by Russian media.)

观察者网查证多家俄媒与白俄罗斯官方媒体报道，卢卡申科并没有宣布“白俄合并”，而是对两国联合（观察者网注：原文объединение意为联合、统一，俄媒译为一体化）进行了积极表态。

Reacting to the sentence of “merger tomorrow”, TASS quoted Lukashenko’s original words as being “provided that you are prepared, we can have a union tomorrow (объединиться вдвоем), that’s no problem. But are the Russian and Belarusian people well prepared? (но готовы ли вы),” “if well prepared, we will fulfill the will of the people.”

针对那句“明天就合并”，塔斯社援引卢卡申科说法，其实原话是这样，“只要你们准备好，明天我们就可以联合（объединиться вдвоем），这点没有问题，但是白俄罗斯人和俄罗斯人们准备好了吗？（но готовы ли вы）”，“如果准备好了，我们将履行人民的意志。”

According to Belarusian newsagency belta.by reporting, Lukashenko had previously also reiterated that sovereignty was sacred and could not be violated.

据白方官媒白俄罗斯通讯社（belta.by）报道，卢卡申科此前也重申了主权神圣不可侵犯。

Meanwhile, Russian president Vladimir Putin had vaguely commented about “Belarusian-Russian integration”, discussing his opinion about “independence” and saying that “there is no completely independent country in the world. No matter if they are big or small countries, today’s world is interdependent.”

俄罗斯总统普京则对“白俄一体化”进行了模糊表态，他谈到了自己对“独立”的看法，称“世界上不存在完全独立的国家，无论是大国还是小国都是如此，现代世界相互依存。”

On February 22, Lukashenko also mentioned the INF treaty. He said that Russia had not violated the treaty in question, and voiced concern that America could deploy missiles after its withdrawal [from the treaty]. He believed that this could create a very big threat to Belarus. He said that Belarus would need to consider countermeasures.

22日，卢卡申科也谈及了《中导条约》问题，他表示，相信俄方未违反相应条约，并对美国在退约之后可能在欧洲部署导弹表示担忧，认为这将对白俄罗斯造成很大威胁。他表示白俄罗斯需要与俄罗斯共同思考如何采取回应措施。

____________

Related

We are no scroungers, BelTa, March 1, 2019
How the EU lost Ukraine, Der Spiegel, Nov 25, 2013

____________

Tsai Ing-wen: Beijing’s Threats do Harm beyond Taiwan

When China threatens war, media do become interested in Taiwan (even though the threat is nothing new), Klaus Bardenhagen, a German correspondent in Taipei, wrote on January 6. His post links to an English translation of Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen‘s new year’s address on January 1, to a summary of Chinese CCP secretary general and State Chairman Xi Jinping‘s “Taiwan message anniversary” speech (January 2), and to Tsai Ing-wen’s reaction to that speech (also on January 2).

Bardenhagen points out that the main newsworthy content in Xi’s speech was an equation of the “1992 consensus” with “one country, one systems” “one country, two systems”^*) formula.

His post also reports President Tsai’s international press conference (or reception) on January 5 (see above video, statement in English).

Bardenhagen asked her what Taiwan would wish countries like Germany to do in this situation. Apparently, she didn’t reply with a specific demand to Germany, but to Taiwan’s general role in the community of other democracies:

When such a country faces difficulties and threats, we hope that the international community will watch this closely, speak on our behalf, and support us.

當這樣的國家面臨困難, 面臨威脅的時候，我們希望國際社會能夠重視，而且能夠替我們發聲、來協助我們。

Because if a country like this one – that practices democracy and these internationally held values – is threatened and infringed upon, I believe that this harms democracy and many values. If Taiwan faces this situation and there is no international assistance to Taiwan rasing its voice, if Taiwan isn’t supported internationally, we have to ask which country will be next.

因為如果一個實踐民主，實踐這個國際共同的價值這麼努力的國家受到威脅，受到侵害，我相信，對民主，對很多的價值也是一種傷害。如果今天台灣面臨這樣的情況，國際不替台灣發聲，國際不為台灣來協助的話，我們要問下一個就是哪一個國家。

____________

Related

Press Reception, ROC President, Jan 5, 2019
“We uphold our Principles,” Jan 2, 2019

____________
^*) Update/Correction, Aug 3, 2022

____________

Tsai Ing-wen: “We do not provoke, but we uphold our Principles”

The following  is my off-the-cuff translation of a statement made by Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen this afternoon, in response to remarks made by Chinese State Chairman Xi Jinping earlier today (all local time). This translation may contain errors.

One expression has remained untranslated; it had apparently been used by Xi Jinping earlier, and I don’t know its meaning – 心灵契合.

udn video (聯合影音), Jan 2, 2018

Main Link: President answers to Xi Jinping’s Remarks (full text), published by Radio Taiwan International (RTI)

After Chinese State Chairman Xi Jinping’s remarks on the 40th anniversary of the “Message of Compatriots in Taiwan” [on January 1, 1979], President Tsai Ing-wen answered personally, at the presidential palace, this afternoon (January 2). The wording is as follows:

在中國國家主席習近平發表「告台灣同胞書」40週年的紀念談話後，蔡英文總統今天(2日)下午也親自在總統府做出回應，全文如下:

Compatriots, friends from the media, good afternoon to everyone.

國人同胞，各位媒體朋友，大家午安。

This morning, Chinese State Chairman Xi Jinping made a so-called “Message of Compatriots in Taiwan” 40th-anniversary speech, proposing a one-country-two-systems plan and related content for Taiwan. As President of the Republic of China, I would like to explain our position concerning this matter.

今天上午，中國國家主席習近平，發表了所謂《告台灣同胞書》40 週年的紀念談話，提出了探索一國兩制台灣方案等相關內容，身為中華民國的總統，我要在此說明我們的立場。

First of all, I must seriously point out that we have never accepted a “92 consensus”. The basic reason is that this is a “92 consensus” defined by the authorities in Beijing. In fact, it just means “one China” and “one country, two systems”. What the leader on the other side of the Taiwan Strait said today has confirmed our misgivings. From here, I want to reiterate that Taiwan will not accept “one country, two systems”, and the overwhelming majority of Taiwanese public opinion also resolutely opposes “one country, two systems”, and this is also the “Taiwan consensus”.

首先，我必須要鄭重指出，我們始終未接受「九二共識」，根本的原因就是北京當局所定義的「九二共識」，其實就是「一個中國」、「一國兩制」。今天對岸領導人的談話，證實了我們的疑慮。在這裡，我要重申，台灣絕不會接受「一國兩制」，絕大多數台灣民意也堅決反對「一國兩制」，而這也是「台灣共識」。

Next, we are willing to sit down and talk, but as a democratic country, any political consultations and talks touching upon cross-strait relations must be authorized and supervised by the people of Taiwan, and conducted in a government-to-government mode. Under this principle, there are no people, no organizations who would have the authority to represent the Taiwanese people in political consultations.

其次，我們願意坐下來談，但作為民主國家，凡是涉及兩岸間的政治協商、談判，都必須經過台灣人民的授權與監督，並且經由兩岸以政府對政府的模式來進行。在這個原則之下，沒有任何人、任何團體，有權力代表台灣人民去進行政治協商。

The development of cross-strait relations – I said that very clearly in my new-year remarks yesterday – is that China must face up to the existing facts of the Republic of China on Taiwan rather than deny the democratic state system the people of Taiwan jointly established. Secondly, they must respect the adherence of the people of 23 million to freedom and democracy, and must not intervene in the Taiwanese people’s choices in a splitting and luring manner.

兩岸關係的發展，我在昨天的新年談話，說得很清楚，那就是中國必須正視中華民國台灣存在的事實，而不是否定台灣人民共同建立的民主國家體制；第二，必須尊重兩千三百萬人民對自由民主的堅持，而不是以分化、利誘的方式，介入台灣人民的選擇；

Thirdly, there is a need to handle the differences between the two sides in a peaceful manner among equals, instead of using pressure and threats in attempts to  make the Taiwanese yield. Fourthly, it has to be governments or legal mechanisms authorized by the governments who sit down to talk. Consultations unauthorized and unsupervised by the people cannot be considered “democratic consultations”. This is Taiwan’s position and the democratic position.

第三，必須以和平對等的方式來處理雙方之間的歧異，而不是用打壓、威嚇，企圖讓台灣人屈服；第四，必須是政府或政府所授權的公權力機構，坐下來談，任何沒有經過人民授權、監督的政治協商，都不能稱作是「民主協商」。這就是台灣的立場，就是民主的立場。

We are willing to conduct orderly and healthy cross-strait exchange on the foundations of “democratic consolidation” and “strengthening national security”. I would also like to reiterate that we must urgently establish a three-lane protection network for the safety of people’s livelihood, information security, and institutionalized democratic supervision mechanisms.

我們願意在「鞏固民主」以及「強化國家安全」基礎上，進行有秩序的、健康的兩岸交流，我也要重申，國內亟需要建立兩岸交流的三道防護網，也就是民生安全、資訊安全以及制度化的民主監督機制。

Cross-strait trade should be mutually beneficial, for both sides to prosper. However, we oppose the economic united front with Beijing’s method of “using gain as a lure”, with “benefiting only China” at the center, attracting Taiwanese technology, capital and talent “going to the mainland”. With all our efforts, we will promote the strategies and measures of “strengthening Taiwan”, consolidate Taiwan’s economic development route as the priority.

兩岸經貿應該互惠互利，共榮發展；但我們反對北京以「利中」為核心，以利誘及吸引台灣技術、資本及人才「走進中國大陸」的經濟統戰。我們將全力推動「壯大台灣」的各項策略跟措施，鞏固以台灣為主體、台灣優先的經濟發展路線。

Over the past two years, has carefully met its obligations as a member of the region, and actively contributed to cross-strait and regional peace and stability. We do not provoke, but we uphold our principles. We have endured pressure, but we have never abandoned our basic positions and promises concerning cross-strait relations. I would like to remind the Beijing authorities that big countries must act as big countries, with the responsibility of big countries, and that the international community is watching if there is change in China or not, and if it can turn into a partner who obtains trust. The “four musts” are the most basic and crucial basis on which cross-strait relations [must show if they] will or will not move towards positive development.

過去兩年來，台灣善盡區域成員的義務，積極貢獻於兩岸及區域的和平穩定。我們不挑釁，但堅持原則，我們飽受各種打壓，但我們從未放棄對兩岸關係的基本立場與承諾。我要提醒北京當局，大國必須要有大國的格局，大國的責任，國際社會也正看著中國能不能有所改變，成為受到信任的夥伴。「四個必須」正是兩岸關係能否朝向正面發展，最基本、也最關鍵的基礎。

The so-called 心灵契合 must be established on mutual respect and understanding, and on pragmatic handling on both sides of issues concerning the welfare of the people. For example, the most urgent issue of swine fever. Pressure on international companies to altering Taiwan’s name can’t bring about 心灵契合, buying Taiwan’s diplomatic allies won’t 心灵契合 either, and nor will military aircraft, warships that rotate around.

所謂的心靈契合，應該是建立在彼此的相互尊重與理解，建立在兩岸政府務實處理有關人民福祉的問題上。例如，眼前十萬火急的豬瘟疫情。施壓國際企業塗改台灣的名稱，不會帶來心靈契合；買走台灣的邦交國，也不會帶來心靈契合；軍機、軍艦的繞台，更不會帶來心靈契合。

Finally, I would like to reiterate that the nine-in-one regional elections that Taiwan’s grassroots public opinion would abandon sovereignty, or concessions concerning Taiwan.

最後，我要重申，九合一地方選舉的結果，絕不代表台灣基層的民意要放棄主權，也不代表在台灣主體性上做出退讓。

Democratic values are values and a way of life cherished by the people of Taiwan, and we call on China to bravely enter the democratic road. Only by doing so, they can really understand the Taiwanese peoples’ mindset and perseverance. Thank you.

民主價值是台灣人民所珍惜的價值與生活方式，我們也呼籲中國，勇敢踏出民主的腳步，也唯有如此，才能真正理解台灣人的想法與堅持。謝謝

____________

Related

New Year Address, ROC Presidential Office, Jan 1, 2019

____________

Plans for English as an Official Taiwanese Language

Duties and a receptive mode (online and offline) are keeping me from blogging at the moment.

by-products

If I had blogged this month, one topic might have been about Taiwan’s (sensible, I believe) plans to make English their second official language. To survive under Chinese pressure, international perceptibility – i. e. communication – is a key issue for Taiwan.

There had been plans to make English official for some time, but they appear to have been taking shape this summer. Pan-blue leaning United Daily News (UDN) published an online article in March this year, quoting both people in favor and against the idea, including criticism by a Chengchi University professor:

Chengchi University professor Her One-Soon says that this, in ideological terms, is about surrender to Western power. “Currently, most of the countries of the world that have made English an official language have been colonized by Britain and America”, but has Taiwan? If [English] is really to become an official language, it only represents Taiwan’s inferiority complex towards its own language and culture.

政大語言所教授何萬順則說，這樣在意識形態上是向西方強權屈膝，「目前世界大多國家以英文做為官方語言，都是被英美殖民過」，但台灣有嗎？若是真的定為官方語言，只是代表台灣對自身語言文化的自卑。

If statistics of six years ago are something to go by, there may be more practical issues that would need to be solved. In November 2012, the English-language Taipei Times quoted a foreign education company’s study which said that proficiency in English was low.

Currently, Taiwan is ranked as a country with rather low proficiency by “Education First” (which emphasizes the importance of perceptibility by listing Taiwan as “Taiwan, China”).