This past week has seen many activities related to Human Rights Day. Looking back over the past year, the most significant development for human rights in Taiwan was the ratification of two key international conventions — the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Taiwan ratified these two covenants 42 years after signing them, and the UN Secretariat, predictably, did not accept Taiwan’s move to deposit the ratified conventions into its custody. More important, though, is the fact that our legislature, at the same time it ratified the covenants, also passed a law on their implementation. This means that while the UN might not recognize the fact, these covenants will now have the effect of special laws in Taiwan. This makes Taiwan appear more sincere in its willingness to implement their content than countries such as China.
This has attracted the attention of people and organizations concerned with human rights around the world, and has raised the expectations of Taiwanese civic groups that have been pressing for the covenants to be ratified for a decade.
These expectations, however, are accompanied by anxiety, especially with regard to the availability of knowledge and information that are essential conditions for implementing the covenants. To understand these worries, we must consider Taiwan’s peculiar history and the odd international conditions in which it has found itself over the past few decades.
Up until 1971, Taiwan played a part in the formation of the post-war international human rights framework. Notably, Chang Peng-chun (張澎春) served as vice chairman of the UN Commission on Human Rights, assisting chairman and former US first lady Eleanor Roosevelt in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That was a long time ago, though, and few of those who were involved are still with us.
Since 1971, when Taiwan withdrew from the UN, it has been excluded from all UN-related human rights bodies. In the 38 years since then, Taiwan’s government, unlike those of other countries, has had no involvement in international human rights affairs, such as considering which way to vote, preparing national human rights reports, dealing with shadow reports submitted by domestic or foreign advocacy groups, helping draft human rights treaties and so on.
The situation for NGOs is not much different. Article 71 of the UN Charter encourages NGOs to participate in UN affairs, and national and international human rights advocacy groups have been very willing to do so. By the time of the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights, NGOs were able to organize a parallel conference. Taiwanese NGOs, however, could only get in by attaching themselves to international ones. Taiwan’s civic groups, therefore, have little more practical experience than the government.
After 38 years without the stimulus of these meetings, pressures and demands, it is hardly surprising that Taiwan should be so lacking in research about human rights even at home, still less abroad, and have so little education about human rights. The media is insensitive and has poor judgment on human rights issues. For instance, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) announced on Dec. 9 the release of a set of postage stamps on the theme of clean government and the two UN covenants taking effect. While foreign observers commented that this combination of themes seemed rather odd, most Taiwanese media didn’t even mention it.
The cumulated deleterious effects these background factors have had on the government, NGOs, research institutes and media are a matter of concern. The lack of knowledge and information and the resulting attitudes have serious implications for whether or not the two covenants can really be put into practice in Taiwan. How serious the problem is can be seen by the fact that the law on execution of the covenants stipulates that the government must, within two years, review and rectify all laws, regulations and administrative practices that do not comply with the covenants. The government has already given public servants training for this purpose, but even seed teachers in ministries only get four training sessions, or 12 hours altogether. With such a weak foundation, it is not surprising that the problem-filled report that was rushed out in time for Human Rights Day avoided important issues while dwelling on the trivial.
In view of this, one of the many suggestions put forward by Covenants Watch is particularly worthy of attention — to set up as soon as possible a permanent human rights research and training structure, bringing together specialists and experts and drawing on international resources to resolve problems in research, teaching personnel, educational materials, information and so on.
It is worth noting that Britain, a nation with a relatively “normal” background, in 1998 passed a Human Rights Act that took effect two years later, making the European Convention on Human Rights a part of domestic law — a situation not unlike that of Taiwan today. In the intervening period, the British government made meticulous preparations and provided training that lasted for several years for civil servants, from judges to social workers. It would be a good thing if our government did likewise.
The public wants to see the two covenants implemented in their entirety. The “two years” stipulated in the law on execution of the covenants should be seen as a time for learning, otherwise the process of implementing human rights will falter and fail, and the covenants will have been implemented in name only.
Peter Huang is chairman of Amnesty International Taiwan and a member of Covenants Watch.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS