The recent execution of five death row inmates not only brought the topic of Taiwan’s abolishing the death penalty back into public focus, but also led the German government’s commissioner for human rights policy to immediately condemn the decision and demand that Taiwan’s representative to Germany explain the matter to Germany’s Foreign Office. Shortly after this, the EU’s High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy also issued a strong protest.
The German reaction could easily have been anticipated. In 2005, Washington Post journalist Charles Lane discovered that every time a US state executed a death row inmate, the German media would rise as one to attack the US, although the German government did not dare reprimand the US ambassador to Germany. After researching the issue to get to the bottom of the drafting of Article 102 of Germany’s Grundgesetz (Basic Law), which abolishes the death penalty, Lane wrote a piece called “The Paradoxes of a Death Penalty Stance.”
Many Germans feel that Article 102, which simply reads, “The death penalty is abolished,” gives them the moral high ground, and they think of other nations as being barbaric for not following in their footsteps. If you ask a German about the source of Article 102, the answer would be that they were motivated by disgust at the Nazis’ brutal killings during World War II and so decided to abolish the death penalty to uphold human rights and dignity. However, Lane discovered another reason.
After World War II had just ended, nearly 80 percent of Germans supported the death sentence. Therefore, the Social Democrats, who had promoted abolishing the death sentence, did not dare go against public opinion. Other political parties were the same. However, a miracle occurred and a delegate, Hans-Christoph Seebohm, from a small party on the far right surprisingly proposed abolishing the death sentence. What where his motives for doing so?
At that time, the occupying forces had already held several trials in Nuremberg and major war criminals had been executed while many secondary war criminals had been sentenced to death, but had not yet been executed. Seebohm had very close ties to the Nazis and to save others from execution, he came up with the plan to abolish the death penalty. Unexpectedly, not only did the Social Democrats agree, but the larger Christian Democratic Union also supported the idea, as many of its members were also Nazi sympathizers, and Article 102 was passed.
In his piece, Lane says that those who wrote the article did not care about the fate of ordinary killers and that if it wasn’t for those Nazi leaders, Germany would never have drawn up Article 102.
Germany has been a major player in promoting the abolition of the death sentence. Before World War II, smaller countries like Switzerland and the Netherlands abolished the death sentence, but such a move did not catch on. After Germany’s economy regained its strength and as it gained more of a say in Western European affairs, the Germans used this as an opportunity to promote the values of their Basic Law and worked assiduously at pushing through the European Convention on Human Rights demanding that all member states abolish the death sentence.
With the exception of Belarus, all European countries have now done this, so Germany can claim a lot of the credit for pushing for the abolition of the death sentence. However, we must know that their abolition of the death sentence was a product of chance. Article 102 was drawn up against public opinion and, in comparison, the way Taiwan is acting is more in line with the practices of a democratic nation.
Huang Juei-min is a law professor at Providence University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS