Peace through justice is the first goal for a sustainable world. The U.N. and democratic states themselves are often weak in pursuing it, as the Tai Ji Men case demonstrates.
by Marco Respinti*
*Introduction to the webinar “No Peace Without Real Justice for Tai Ji Men,” co-organized by CESNUR and Human Rights Without Frontiers on 20 September 2024, on the eve of the UN International Day of Peace.
An article already published in Bitter Winter on September 21st, 2024.
In 2015, all member states of the UN adopted a plan for global action in the attempt of affecting the near future of the whole world. They agreed to devise 17 objectives, called “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs), to be reached within 15 years, and this is the reason way this plan is commonly referred to as the “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” The reported aim of the UN is to achieve harmony and prosperity for everybody, interconnecting the environmental, social, and economic aspects of life under the basic assumption that, to be enjoyed and have positive results, development must be sustainable for all, and carried through as well as possibly reached in a sustainable way by all.
One of the 17 SDGs is “Peace, justice and strong institutions”. With it, the UN binds member states to promote inclusive societies by building effective and accountable institutions at all levels. The 17 SDGs include efforts to reduce violence; protect children from abuse, exploitation, trafficking and violence; promote the rule of law; combat organized crime and illicit financial and arms flows; substantially reduce corruption and bribery; develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions; ensure responsive, inclusive and representative decision-making; strengthen the participation in global governance; provide universal legal identity; ensure public access to information, and protect fundamental freedoms.
Furtherly addressing the topic, on July 6, 2017, the General Assembly of the UN adopted a resolution fostering the 2030 Agenda also by means of some concrete indications. As to the SDG “Peace, justice and strong institutions”, the UN mentioned two key points: the strengthening of national institutions to prevent violence, crime and terrorism; and the promotion and enforcement of non-discriminatory laws and policies.
Let me try to sketch a first conclusion here, articulated into two points. As clearly stated in the Agenda 2030, the UN considers peace as strictly connected to justice, meaning that no real peace can be reached without giving to all what is due based on their human nature and the standards that humanity has reached throughout its history. Implicit but strong in this statement is the basic idea that peace cannot be the mere absence of war.
This is my first point. The second is that, through its 2030 Agenda, the UN states that a sustainable future for humanity is reachable only by focusing on the strict correlation between peace and justice. Said differently, for the UN humanity will be able to stay human only by granting peace through justice to all.
I think these are the key points to consider when confronted with that incredible situation that we are discussing in this series of webinars under the name “The Tai Ji Men Case.” This is in fact a spectacular example of blatant injustice that has arrogantly denied and still openly denies, the enjoyment of true peace to a whole community of pacific, law-abiding, and patriotic citizens of the Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan by curtailing and denying their fundamental right to freedom of religion or belief. The fact that this injustice has been and is perpetrated through fabricated evidence, lies, and corruption makes the case literally unbearable while calling for international keen attention. In fact, as this series of webinars has repeatedly and truly stated, if this can happen in a democratic society where the rule of law is considered fundamental, it endangers the whole world.
Let us now return to the grand goal of the UN 2030 Agenda, aimed at shaping the future of humankind, to underline some of its flaws.
Out of its 17 SDGs, “Peace, justice and strong institutions” is listed number 16. It almost comes last. It is in fact preceded by other goals, such as good health, gender equality, decent work, economic growth industry, innovation, infrastructures, and so on. Also, SDG No. 1 wishes to fight poverty using a quite utopian approach that I think weakens the whole document: “Eradicating extreme poverty for all people everywhere by 2030.” Those listed in the 2030 Agenda are of course all key points for everyone, but by placing peace and justice at the end, the UN is implying that they are a mere consequence of other goals. It should be the contrary.
By any simple logic, No. 1 in a list sets the tone and path for what comes next and makes the rest dependent on it. This is why granting peace through justice should be the first goal of the member states of the UN. In fact, equality among human beings, decent condition of work, development and sustainability, all derive from peace through justice, not the opposite. There cannot be any of such human achievements if justice is not the basis. Even a democratic society is not peaceful until justice is granted to all its citizens. The 17 SDGs of the UN mention even good health for people. In fact, even good health for people is unattainable if justice is not achieved.
Of course, the UN 2030 Agenda sprang out of the world’s worries for climate change and its phrasing as well as its hierarchy in listing its goals shows it quite well. This is another weakness of the document. Is the UN saying that the world would be better off if 15 goals mainly concerning the environment and productivity are secured before peace through justice for all? I already see the smiles of rogue states…
The final weakness of the UN 2030 Agenda is that, after putting peace through justice almost at the end of its considerations, it seems also to be willing to let injustice prevail outside the circle of its member states. Of course, the UN documents and resolutions bind only members states, but can a sustainable world be achieved if a democratic country based on the rule of law that, for the events of history, and not by its will, has been excluded by the UN, such as is ROC, is left alone when it violates the fundamental right to religious liberty of a group of its citizens that has been repeatedly cleared of all accusations by every level of the Taiwanese justice? Will the UN be satisfied of reaching peace and justice only for some people on Earth and not for all? Is the UN saying that peace and justice, already considered of lesser importance, are not universal values?
I think it cannot and this is why the “Tai Ji Men case,” tragic and also emblematic as it is, should signal a red alert for all democratic institutions, starting from the UN and its devised goals for the future.