President William Lai (賴清德) last week attended a dinner in Taipei with representatives from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). During the event, he expressed “relief” about the release of Israeli hostages and said that Taiwan had “provided assistance to the Israeli people through humanitarian aid and medical supplies.”
While such remarks might reflect Taiwan’s concern for humanitarian issues, they highlight a glaring omission: the ongoing catastrophe in Gaza. Palestinian civilians, particularly women and children, have been under relentless bombardment and severe obstruction of humanitarian relief. This silence exposes a troubling double standard in Taiwan’s human rights discourse — one that threatens to undermine its international credibility.
Over the past two years, Gaza has faced one of the most devastating humanitarian crises in modern history.
UN data showed that more than 37,000 Palestinians have been killed and nearly 2 million have been displaced. Amnesty International and several governments have condemned Israel for serious contraventions of international humanitarian law. South Africa has gone a step further, filing a case with the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of genocide.
Taiwan’s government has remained silent, continuing to deepen diplomatic and economic ties with Israel. This raises an uncomfortable question: Can Taiwan still claim to uphold universal human rights while turning a blind eye to suffering in Gaza?
Amnesty International said that Israel’s actions in Gaza are crimes against humanity, including the deliberate killing of civilians, forced displacement, collective punishment and the obstruction of humanitarian aid.
The organization urged governments to support the International Criminal Court in investigating and holding Israel accountable. Refusing to do so would only perpetuate Israel’s sense of impunity and weaken the global human rights framework.
If the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Presidential Office continue to highlight the “good news” of hostage releases while ignoring the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, this reveals not only a moral blind spot, but also a strategic misjudgment. Taiwan’s strength in global diplomacy lies in its moral standing — its ability to present itself as a democracy committed to universal values. If it applies those values selectively, it risks losing the moral high ground that has long distinguished it from authoritarian regimes.
At a time when the international community is calling for a ceasefire and increased humanitarian access, Taiwan’s one-sided sympathy for Israel risks portraying it as inconsistent on human rights. Such a stance could alienate potential allies in the Global South and civil society organizations that have historically supported Taiwan’s democratic aspirations.
Taiwan has much to gain by adopting a principled, balanced position — one that acknowledges the security concerns of all parties while reaffirming the universal rights of people. Calling for an immediate ceasefire, urging respect for international humanitarian law and offering aid to Palestinians in Gaza would not only demonstrate moral courage, but also improve Taiwan’s reputation as a responsible and compassionate democracy.
Taiwan’s history gives it a unique moral perspective. Having struggled for decades to secure democracy and human rights, Taiwan understands the value of global solidarity. Just as Taiwan hopes the world would stand with it in times of crisis, it, too, should stand with others when their fundamental rights are under assault.
Human rights cannot be selective, nor should moral conviction be silenced by diplomatic convenience. If Taiwan truly aspires to be a nation founded on human rights values, it must have the courage to speak out for justice — even when doing so is politically inconvenient.
Silence in the face of suffering is not neutrality; it is complicity. Taiwan must choose to be on the side of humanity. Only by doing so could it earn the respect, trust and solidarity of the international community it so rightly seeks.
Chiu E-ling is the executive director of Amnesty International Taiwan. Echo Lin is the chair of Amnesty International Taiwan.
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
RSS