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
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS