This past week has seen many activities related to Human Rights Day. Looking back over the past year, the most significant development for human rights in Taiwan was the ratification of two key international conventions — the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Taiwan ratified these two covenants 42 years after signing them, and the UN Secretariat, predictably, did not accept Taiwan’s move to deposit the ratified conventions into its custody. More important, though, is the fact that our legislature, at the same time it ratified the covenants, also passed a law on their implementation. This means that while the UN might not recognize the fact, these covenants will now have the effect of special laws in Taiwan. This makes Taiwan appear more sincere in its willingness to implement their content than countries such as China.
This has attracted the attention of people and organizations concerned with human rights around the world, and has raised the expectations of Taiwanese civic groups that have been pressing for the covenants to be ratified for a decade.
These expectations, however, are accompanied by anxiety, especially with regard to the availability of knowledge and information that are essential conditions for implementing the covenants. To understand these worries, we must consider Taiwan’s peculiar history and the odd international conditions in which it has found itself over the past few decades.
Up until 1971, Taiwan played a part in the formation of the post-war international human rights framework. Notably, Chang Peng-chun (張澎春) served as vice chairman of the UN Commission on Human Rights, assisting chairman and former US first lady Eleanor Roosevelt in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That was a long time ago, though, and few of those who were involved are still with us.
Since 1971, when Taiwan withdrew from the UN, it has been excluded from all UN-related human rights bodies. In the 38 years since then, Taiwan’s government, unlike those of other countries, has had no involvement in international human rights affairs, such as considering which way to vote, preparing national human rights reports, dealing with shadow reports submitted by domestic or foreign advocacy groups, helping draft human rights treaties and so on.
The situation for NGOs is not much different. Article 71 of the UN Charter encourages NGOs to participate in UN affairs, and national and international human rights advocacy groups have been very willing to do so. By the time of the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights, NGOs were able to organize a parallel conference. Taiwanese NGOs, however, could only get in by attaching themselves to international ones. Taiwan’s civic groups, therefore, have little more practical experience than the government.
After 38 years without the stimulus of these meetings, pressures and demands, it is hardly surprising that Taiwan should be so lacking in research about human rights even at home, still less abroad, and have so little education about human rights. The media is insensitive and has poor judgment on human rights issues. For instance, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) announced on Dec. 9 the release of a set of postage stamps on the theme of clean government and the two UN covenants taking effect. While foreign observers commented that this combination of themes seemed rather odd, most Taiwanese media didn’t even mention it.
The cumulated deleterious effects these background factors have had on the government, NGOs, research institutes and media are a matter of concern. The lack of knowledge and information and the resulting attitudes have serious implications for whether or not the two covenants can really be put into practice in Taiwan. How serious the problem is can be seen by the fact that the law on execution of the covenants stipulates that the government must, within two years, review and rectify all laws, regulations and administrative practices that do not comply with the covenants. The government has already given public servants training for this purpose, but even seed teachers in ministries only get four training sessions, or 12 hours altogether. With such a weak foundation, it is not surprising that the problem-filled report that was rushed out in time for Human Rights Day avoided important issues while dwelling on the trivial.
In view of this, one of the many suggestions put forward by Covenants Watch is particularly worthy of attention — to set up as soon as possible a permanent human rights research and training structure, bringing together specialists and experts and drawing on international resources to resolve problems in research, teaching personnel, educational materials, information and so on.
It is worth noting that Britain, a nation with a relatively “normal” background, in 1998 passed a Human Rights Act that took effect two years later, making the European Convention on Human Rights a part of domestic law — a situation not unlike that of Taiwan today. In the intervening period, the British government made meticulous preparations and provided training that lasted for several years for civil servants, from judges to social workers. It would be a good thing if our government did likewise.
The public wants to see the two covenants implemented in their entirety. The “two years” stipulated in the law on execution of the covenants should be seen as a time for learning, otherwise the process of implementing human rights will falter and fail, and the covenants will have been implemented in name only.
Peter Huang is chairman of Amnesty International Taiwan and a member of Covenants Watch.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
The central bank has launched a redesign of the New Taiwan dollar banknotes, prompting questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — “Are we not promoting digital payments? Why spend NT$5 billion on a redesign?” Many assume that cash will disappear in the digital age, but they forget that it represents the ultimate trust in the system. Banknotes do not become obsolete, they do not crash, they cannot be frozen and they leave no record of transactions. They remain the cleanest means of exchange in a free society. In a fully digitized world, every purchase, donation and action leaves behind data.
Yesterday, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), once the dominant political party in Taiwan and the historic bearer of Chinese republicanism, officially crowned Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) as its chairwoman. A former advocate for Taiwanese independence turned Beijing-leaning firebrand, Cheng represents the KMT’s latest metamorphosis — not toward modernity, moderation or vision, but toward denial, distortion and decline. In an interview with Deutsche Welle that has now gone viral, Cheng declared with an unsettling confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin is “not a dictator,” but rather a “democratically elected leader.” She went on to lecture the German journalist that Russia had been “democratized
RSS