Within the past week, several Chinese spouses of Taiwanese have stirred up controversy by advocating on social media for China to invade Taiwan. However, that kind of language does not fall under freedom of speech and expression as defined in the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Under Article 20 of the covenant, war propaganda and encouragement of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence are prohibited. That is a major exception to the general protections and stipulations listed in the preceding article, which states that everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference.
In 1983, the 19th Session of the UN Human Rights Council passed the general comments to Article 11 to further clarify Article 20. The committee emphasized that Article 20 prohibits war propaganda that possibly or de facto leads to acts of aggression that destroys the advocacy of any peace as promoted in the UN Charter. However, the stipulation does not prohibit the right to self-defense or a person’s self-determination and advocacy for their independence, in line with the language of the charter.
Article 20 also does not specify whether the goal of such propaganda or advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred is targeted at a specific nation, either internally or externally.
Taiwan and China are not subservient to one another. The obvious split between a democratic Taiwan and an authoritarian China is an uncontestable reality, and is part of the international consensus. Advocating for the military annexation of Taiwan not only contravenes the covenants on freedom of speech and expression under the ICCPR, but also contravenes the “Purpose and Principles” section and other conventions of the UN Charter.
To uphold Taiwan’s national security and sovereignty, the government must unequivocally prohibit speech advocating for China’s “military unification of Taiwan.” Application of such laws should of course not be limited to Chinese spouses, but should also apply to Taiwanese, such as former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) central policy committee director Alex Tsai (蔡正元).
Chen Yi-nan is the convener of the science and technology committee of the Northern Taiwan Society, and an arbitrator and patent attorney.
Translated by Tim Smith
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
RSS