AIT should issue guidelines
According to my friends in [Taipei’s] Neihu [District (內湖)], the new American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) headquarters is expected to open there early next year.
Previously, as we know, protesters, petitioners, etc. who had information that they wished to bring to the attention of the US authorities frequently gathered in front of the AIT on Xinyi Road and blocked traffic.
Jinhu Road in Neihu is a very long and wide boulevard that can easily accommodate five or 10 times the number of people that previously gathered in front of AIT.
Hence, some residents of Neihu are wondering if the AIT could, before its opening, issue specific “Petitioning Guidelines” for the reference of all interested parties.
In particular, we know that the [US’] Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) contains a “Human Rights Clause.”
In most countries, the inclusion of such a clause in domestic legislation would immediately cause the formation of a “Human Rights Commission” to which all concerned persons could submit their petitions. The commission would offer all necessary assistance and coordination to solve their problems.
However, under the TRA, no such commission has been established for Taiwanese.
As I know, concern for human rights in Taiwan took a dramatic upturn after Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was elected president in 2000.
One major issue that Taiwan Autonomy Foundation members have heard raised in recent years is the feeling that “human rights” must be based on having an internationally recognized nationality.
Curiously, the Republic of China passport gives the bearer’s nationality as “Republic of China,” a nationality designation that does not exist internationally.
Reference: The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has published ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes, which the International Civil Aviation Organization has adopted as the official designations for a “recognized nationality” to use in manufacturing machine-readable passports, carried by all international travelers.
There is no entry for “Republic of China” or “ROC.”
But doesn’t Article 15 (1) of the Universal Human Rights Declaration say everyone has the right to a nationality?
Many people in Taiwan complain of this problem in petitions to the AIT, the Department of State, the White House, members of the US Congress, etc.
According to my knowledge, from 2000 to the present, neither the AIT nor the State Department has given any substantive response to these petitions or to other petitions.
Hence the request: Before moving to Neihu, could the AIT please issue some “Petitioning Guidelines”?
If neither the AIT nor the State Department is willing to respond to human rights petitions, why not formally announce that petitions from Taiwanese are not welcome and will not be processed?
Accordingly, there would be no point in assembling large groups of people in Neihu to present any type of complaints to the AIT personnel.
We would also hope that the US government would clarify how Taiwanese can resolve their human rights problems based on the TRA’s human rights clause. Why can’t we have a Human Rights Commission?
Tom Chang
Alhambra, California
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
RSS