On Monday, the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission gave a glimmer of hope to a group of more than 100 Tibetans in exile who made their unfortunate way to Taiwan in hopes of gaining residency here.
The commission promised shelter for the Tibetans while their fate is decided and said the Cabinet might propose amending the Immigration Act (出入國及移民法) to allow them to stay.
As the law stands, the Tibetans would have no hope of help from the government. Many in the group have lived here illegally for years. They entered the country on forged travel documents — passports from India and Nepal — thus deceiving immigration staff. But most importantly, the policy that at one time helped Tibetans in exile come to Taiwan and stay here has been defunct for years, while the nation has no asylum law.
Yet the Tibetans, many of whom probably have no legal passport, cannot easily be returned to India and Nepal — countries they entered from Tibet before continuing to Taiwan, and which can refuse them entry based on their lack of travel documents. The worldwide irony of asylum law is that would-be refugees must usually enter a country illegally before they can legally seek asylum: There is no internationally recognized right to enter a country with the purpose of seeking asylum.
The other option — returning the Tibetans to their home country — can hardly be considered. Having fled once, they would likely meet harassment from authorities, compounding the oppression that prompted them to flee in the first place.
While the Tibetans are here illegally under local law, the fact that Taiwan has no procedure to judge their claim to stay is illegal under international law. The nation has a responsibility to create a mechanism to deal with applications from potential refugees.
Taiwan should consider that this obligation applies to it regardless of the nation’s limited participation in international bodies. During the decades when international asylum law took form at the UN and the UN High Commissioner of Refugees was established, the Republic of China was a member. The governments of the world, it was decided, share a responsibility for the tragic reality that hundreds of millions of people face political persecution or violence within their own countries.
Taiwan cannot continue to decide the fate of those in need on a case-by-case basis, seeking loopholes or adding piecemeal amendments to the Immigration Act.
This group of Tibetans are not the only people in Taiwan who find themselves in limbo, nor should the government expect that this case will be the last. The nation does attract a small number of would-be refugees, such as from African countries, and earlier this year, two Chinese asylum-seekers drew the media’s attention. Asylum seekers will continue to make the sad mistake of coming to Taiwan to apply for help under a law that doesn’t exist.
Unless this is addressed by the legislature through the creation of an asylum law, the fate of those who say they suffered persecution in their home countries may depend on their ability to win public sympathy through media coverage. Where the public’s concern is sufficient, the government may be moved to act, if only to avoid controversy.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS