Since the beginning of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Taiwan has sent comprehensive aid to the eastern European country in several ways, even though it has no official diplomatic relations with either side. Taiwan’s actions include economic sanctions against Russia, condemnation of Putin’s war and helping Ukrainian refugees through humanitarian aid.
As part of international sanctions against Russia, Taiwan has joined a list of countries that have banned Russian banks from using the SWIFT international payment system. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co, one of the largest global chipmakers, has suspended all sales to Russia and its suppliers.
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), Vice President William Lai (賴清德) and Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) each promised to donate one month’s salary toward aid efforts in the country, and underlined Taiwan’s support of Ukraine, democracy and freedom.
Marches for peace have taken place across Taiwan, including a “die-in” protest over the Bucha massacre in Ukraine.
Taiwanese have also shown humanitarian support, with monetary donations to support displaced people, while the government has donated NT$28.67 million (US$981,547) each to the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia to assist Ukrainian refugees. In just 18 days, a Taiwanese non-profit raised NT$740 million for Ukraine.
Taiwan can go even further, but it must first address one of the pressure issues facing leaders: whether the government should change its asylum law.
Since the start of the war, several Ukrainian residents in Taiwan have gathered outside the Russian representative office in Taipei to protest Putin’s invasion of their homeland, demanding an urgent truce and urging Taiwan’s government to accept Ukrainian refugees. They also called on the government to update its asylum rules, an issue that has been reframed since Beijing’s crackdown in Hong Kong.
An asylum law has been stuck in the legislature for almost 14 years, and its enacment requires the passage of supplementary laws. A proposed bill has not advanced because various problems remain unresolved and there is no consensus on how to proceed.
Non-governmental organizations handle refugee and asylum-seeker issues by negotiating with government agencies, such as the National Immigration Agency. The organizations look after refugees, but are rarely able to obtain residence permits for them.
When considering an asylum law, there are three key problems to address: the political sensitivities surrounding Taiwan and China, Taiwan’s national security and the risk of overburdening the asylum system.
One major point of disagreement is whether asylum legislation should cover people from China, Hong Kong and Macau. By adding them to such a law, Taiwan would be formally recognizing people from those regions as non-citizens, implying a shift in its sovereignty claim.
From the perspective of national security, as Taiwanese are wary of infiltration by Chinese spies, the government and a vast portion of the public oppose an asylum law. On the other hand, Chinese agents could enter Taiwan in a variety of ways rather than as refugees, making student, investment and tourist visas better alternatives.
Another concern is that a large influx of people fleeing China and Hong Kong, or other countries, could overload a refugee system. From 2012 to 2020, the number of Chinese asylum claimants increased from 15,362 to 107,864. From mid-2020 to the middle of last year, about 90,000 people left Hong Kong, the highest population loss since 2003.
However, the events leading to big inflows of refugees can occur without warning. Taiwan would need a toolbox of measures to use under such circumstances. For example, it could turn to Japan, perhaps the most “closed” country to refugees in Asia.
Even though Japan only approved 47 out of 3,936 petitions for refugee status in 2020, it has so far accepted more than 400 Ukrainians, and they do not appear to be pressuring the Japanese refugee system.
The Taiwanese government has been proud of its reputation as a human rights leader in Asia. If Taiwan raised its human rights standards to meet those of the rest of the world, it would demonstrate that it can be a global leader in the protection of such rights, reinforcing the idea that human rights are universal.
Taiwan should maintain a reasonable distance from the Hong Kong independence question, provide substantial support to political refugees and take legislative steps to establish asylum-seeking procedures.
If Taiwan is not well-prepared, refugees could be left open to mistreatment.
Refugees often face prejudice and discrimination in the places they arrive. A mechanism for locals and refugees to exchange ideas is needed, such as language and cultural programs for refugees, and cultural exchanges between locals and refugees.
Laws to protect female refugees would also be required. A man was arrested in Poland for allegedly raping a 19-year-old woman who fled Ukraine. Experts warn that the escalating refugee crisis could lead to sexual exploitation and human trafficking.
Embracing refugees is not only a humanitarian and legal commitment, but also an investment with many returns. As laborers, innovators, entrepreneurs, taxpayers, consumers and investors, refugees can contribute economically to the nations receiving them. Helping refugees can lead to job creation, increases in worker productivity and wages, and higher capital returns. It can also stimulate international commerce and investment, while promoting innovation, business and growth.
Ukraine and Taiwan have long grappled with the threats of authoritarian neighbors, while sharing the common values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The war in Ukraine has demonstrated to the world how critical it is for democracies to stand united against authoritarian aggression.
Taiwan must resolve its asylum issues and show the world that it cherishes liberal and humanitarian values. Taiwan assuming a leading role in promoting human rights in Asia would be a milestone, and help it gain support from like-minded democracies.
Mai Shimajiri is a research assistant at the Taiwan NextGen Foundation.
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS