On Monday, the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission gave a glimmer of hope to a group of more than 100 Tibetans in exile who made their unfortunate way to Taiwan in hopes of gaining residency here.
The commission promised shelter for the Tibetans while their fate is decided and said the Cabinet might propose amending the Immigration Act (出入國及移民法) to allow them to stay.
As the law stands, the Tibetans would have no hope of help from the government. Many in the group have lived here illegally for years. They entered the country on forged travel documents — passports from India and Nepal — thus deceiving immigration staff. But most importantly, the policy that at one time helped Tibetans in exile come to Taiwan and stay here has been defunct for years, while the nation has no asylum law.
Yet the Tibetans, many of whom probably have no legal passport, cannot easily be returned to India and Nepal — countries they entered from Tibet before continuing to Taiwan, and which can refuse them entry based on their lack of travel documents. The worldwide irony of asylum law is that would-be refugees must usually enter a country illegally before they can legally seek asylum: There is no internationally recognized right to enter a country with the purpose of seeking asylum.
The other option — returning the Tibetans to their home country — can hardly be considered. Having fled once, they would likely meet harassment from authorities, compounding the oppression that prompted them to flee in the first place.
While the Tibetans are here illegally under local law, the fact that Taiwan has no procedure to judge their claim to stay is illegal under international law. The nation has a responsibility to create a mechanism to deal with applications from potential refugees.
Taiwan should consider that this obligation applies to it regardless of the nation’s limited participation in international bodies. During the decades when international asylum law took form at the UN and the UN High Commissioner of Refugees was established, the Republic of China was a member. The governments of the world, it was decided, share a responsibility for the tragic reality that hundreds of millions of people face political persecution or violence within their own countries.
Taiwan cannot continue to decide the fate of those in need on a case-by-case basis, seeking loopholes or adding piecemeal amendments to the Immigration Act.
This group of Tibetans are not the only people in Taiwan who find themselves in limbo, nor should the government expect that this case will be the last. The nation does attract a small number of would-be refugees, such as from African countries, and earlier this year, two Chinese asylum-seekers drew the media’s attention. Asylum seekers will continue to make the sad mistake of coming to Taiwan to apply for help under a law that doesn’t exist.
Unless this is addressed by the legislature through the creation of an asylum law, the fate of those who say they suffered persecution in their home countries may depend on their ability to win public sympathy through media coverage. Where the public’s concern is sufficient, the government may be moved to act, if only to avoid controversy.
It is almost three years since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a friendship with “no limits” — weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Since then, they have retreated from such rhetorical enthusiasm. The “no limits” language was quickly dumped, probably at Beijing’s behest. When Putin visited China in May last year, he said that he and his counterpart were “as close as brothers.” Xi more coolly called the Russian president “a good friend and a good neighbor.” China has conspicuously not reciprocated Putin’s description of it as an ally. Yet the partnership
The ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu (孫子) said “know yourself and know your enemy and you will win a hundred battles.” Applied in our times, Taiwanese should know themselves and know the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) so that Taiwan will win a hundred battles and hopefully, deter the CCP. Taiwanese receive information daily about the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) threat from the Ministry of National Defense and news sources. One area that needs better understanding is which forces would the People’s Republic of China (PRC) use to impose martial law and what would be the consequences for living under PRC
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) said that he expects this year to be a year of “peace.” However, this is ironic given the actions of some KMT legislators and politicians. To push forward several amendments, they went against the principles of legislation such as substantive deliberation, and even tried to remove obstacles with violence during the third readings of the bills. Chu says that the KMT represents the public interest, accusing President William Lai (賴清德) and the Democratic Progressive Party of fighting against the opposition. After pushing through the amendments, the KMT caucus demanded that Legislative Speaker
Beijing’s approval of a controversial mega-dam in the lower reaches of the Yarlung Tsangpo River — which flows from Tibet — has ignited widespread debate over its strategic and environmental implications. The project exacerbates the complexities of India-China relations, and underscores Beijing’s push for hydropower dominance and potential weaponization of water against India. India and China are caught in a protracted territorial dispute along the Line of Actual Control. The approval of a dam on a transboundary river adds another layer to an already strained bilateral relationship, making dialogue and trust-building even more challenging, especially given that the two Asian
RSS