1

European Parliament

28 November 2012 Brussels, Belgium

UNPO

© Rich Matheson

EU Strategies, Interventions and Future Prospects for Support to Indigenous Peoples in Taiwan.

2

The conference was organised by the Office of Metin Kazak, MEP in collaboration with the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO).

© Conference report elaborated by the UNPO in December 2012.

The conference report can be downloaded from www.unpo.org.

Photographs by Hailing Wang. Design Pietro Bruni

Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO)

Laan van Meerdervoort 702517 AN The HagueThe NetherlandsTel.: +31(0)70 3646504Fax: +31(0)70 3646608

unpo@unpo.orgwww.unpo.org

UNPO

3

Conference Report

Eu Strategies, Interventions, and Future Prospects for Support to Indigenous Peoples In Taiwan

28 November 2012 European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium

EU Strategies, Interventions and Future Prospects for Support to Indigenous Peoples in Taiwan.

4

5

Foreword 7 Conference Programme 8 Opening Remarks 9

Speech by Metin Kazak, MEP 10Speech by Marino Busdachin, UNPO General Secretary 11

Speech by Dr Wan-Li Wang, Deputy Ambassador to the Taipei Representative Office in the EU and Belgium 12

Panel I - The Contemporary Context Of Taiwanese Society 13

Taiwan’s Indigenous Peoples: Participation in the ROC’s Development and Democratisation Dr. Ching-Hsin Yu – Vice-President, Taiwan Foundation for Democracy 14

Taiwan’s Presence in the International Arena: Challenges and Opportunities Michael Danielsen – Chairman, Taiwan Corner 15

UNDRIPs and Indigenous Self-Government in Taiwan: a Legal Framework under ConstructionProf. Tsai Chih Wei – Assistant Professor, National Dong Hwa University 17

Panel II – Strategies Of Support To Taiwan’s Indigenous Peoples 19

An Emerging Corporate Social Responsibility - Soft Law Interface: Pathway towards Grassroots Empowerment?Prof. Kevin T. Jackson – Daniel Janssen Chair in CSR, Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management 20

From “To Have” towards “To Be”: Council of Indigenous Peoples and its Five Operation Principles Yedda Palemeq – Program Officer, Council of Indigenous Peoples 22

Advancing a Human Rights Agenda through the EU-Taiwan Partnership: Deepening Trade and Common DevelopmentJoëlle Hivonnet – China Division, European External Action Service 25

Speaker Biographies 26 About The Organisers Of The Conference 28

Metin Kazak, MEP (ALDE) Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO) Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (TFD).

Media Coverage 29

Appendices 30

Appendix 1 – Conference Poster Appendix 2 – Press Release – 14 November 2012 Appendix 3 – Press Reminder – 27 November 2012

Contents

6

7

Taiwan’s remarkable developmental and democratisation progress in re-cent decades has not been without social and economic cost – a price that has been borne disproportionately by the island’s indigenous population. In an effort to promote a more comprehensive developmental agenda for Taiwan’s aborigines, Metin Kazak, MEP, in collaboration with the UNPO, convened a conference on Indigenous Peoples in Taiwan in the European Parliament on 28 November 2012.

A role model for the South-East Asia region in terms of its commitment to upholding minority rights, Taiwan’s contemporary successes have never-theless illuminated further opportunity to implicate its indigenous “First Nations” more fully into the island’s development. Taiwan’s inspiring track record in institutionalising minority political representation means that possibilities to advance the sustainable development of the island’s 2% in-digenous population are both plentiful and feasible.

This conference came in the midst of intensified discussion about conso-lidating the EU-Taiwan trading partnership into a fully-fledged Free Trade Agreement. Given the extensive trading relationship between the EU and Taiwan, in which Taiwan is the EU’s fourth largest trading partner in Asia, and in light of Taiwan’s recent participation in the EU’s visa waiver pro-gramme, it is evident that the bilateral contact between these two territo-ries has been going from strength to strength.

The first conference panel explored various topics ranging from the con-temporary socio-economic discrepancies of Taiwan’s 14 officially-recogni-sed aboriginal tribes vis-à-vis the non-indigenous population; to the issue of Taiwan’s sovereignty in the international arena; to the contemporary prospects for indigenous self-government. Panel two explored the poten-tial of global economic governance regimes in fostering the grassroots em-powerment of indigenous peoples, in addition to the existing government initiatives and principles to support indigenous interests. The conference concluded with an affirmation by Ms Hivonnet (European External Action Service) of the EU’s commitment to promoting universal human rights and to supporting Taiwan’s efforts to implement the provisions of international covenants such as the ICCPR and the ICESCR.

Having brought together a range of actors from media, academia and both governmental and non-governmental organisations, the event contributed to raising greater awareness of Taiwan’s rich cultural diversity and the con-temporary socio-economic challenges confronting the island’s indigenous population. In the aftermath of the conference, the UNPO will remain com-mitted to realising tangible and practical solutions for indigenous develop-ment in Taiwan.

Marino Busdachin,UNPO Secretary General

Foreword

8

12:15 Registration

12:45 Performance by soprano Lu Yu Cheng (Taroko peoples)

12:50 Opening Remarks

Metin Kazak, MEP Marino Busdachin (UNPO General Secretary)Dr Wan-li Wang (Deputy Ambassador to the Taipei Representative Office in the EU and Belgium)

13:10 Panel I – The Contemporary Context of Taiwanese Society

Taiwan’s Indigenous Peoples: Participation in the Republic of China’s Development and Democratisation

Ching-Hsin YuVice-President, Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (Taiwan)

Taiwan’s Presence in the International Arena: Challenges and Opportunities

Michael DanielsenChairman, Taiwan Corner (Denmark)

UNDRIPs and Indigenous Self-Government in Taiwan: a Legal Framework under Construction

Tsai Chih WeiAssistant Professor, Department of Indigenous Development and Social Work, National Dong Hwa University (Taiwan)

13:45 Panel II – Strategies of Support to Taiwan’s Indigenous Peoples

An Emerging Corporate Social Responsibility – Soft Law Interface: Pathway toward Grassroots Empowerment?

Kevin T. JacksonDaniel Janssen Chair in CSR, Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management (Belgium)

From “To Have” towards “To Be”: The Council of Indigenous Peoples and its Five Operation Principles

Yedda PalemeqProgram Officer, Council of Indigenous Peoples (Taiwan)

Advancing a Human Rights Agenda through the EU-Taiwan Partnership: Deepening Trade and Common Development

China Division, European External Action Service (Belgium)

Conference Programme

9

Opening Remarks

Metin Kazak, MEPVice-Chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights

Marino BusdachinUNPO General Secretary

Dr Wan-li WangDeputy Ambassador

to the Taipei Representative Office in the EU and Belgium

Marino Busdachin, Metin Kazak, Wan-Li Wang

10

Speech by Metin Kazak, MEPVice-Chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights

Ladies and Gentlemen, esteemed colleagues and honoured guests

I would like to welcome you to this conference on “EU Strategies, Interventions and Future Prospects for Support to Indigenous Peoples in Taiwan”. Many thanks go to the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation, for their co-preparation of this conference, as well as the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy for their support. I would like to acknowledge my office’s close cooperation with the Taipei Representative Office in Brussels in the coordination of this event and we welcome today Dr Wan-li Wang, Deputy Ambassador to the Taipei Representative Office in the EU and Belgium.

Taiwan has succeeded in asserting itself as an increasingly important global player. Taiwan’s growing levels of international engagement have been reflected in the participation of the island in the European Union’s – and recently the United States’ – visa waiver programme, as well as the possible resumption of bilateral trade talks under the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA), a potential precursor to the realisation of a fully-fledged Free Trade Agreement.

Despite frequent mention of the “Taiwanese miracle” in reference to the island’s rapid economic development in the 1970s and 1980s, Taiwan’s development has not been without economic and social cost. These penalties have been borne disproportionately by Taiwan’s indigenous population since the days of the island’s colonisation under Chinese and Japanese rule. It was only with the lifting of martial law in 1987 that the territory’s indigenous peoples were finally able to campaign for genuine enforcement of their land and labour rights.

Today, the effects of uneven historical development are reflected in the fact that indigenous household incomes are less than 40% of the national Taiwanese average and unemployment substantially higher. Consideration for aboriginal small-scale farming enterprises is too often secondary to priorities within the agricultural sector to welcome foreign imports with open arms. If indigenous peoples are to reap the fruits of their substantial contributions to Taiwan’s liberal democracy and the inspiring institutional structures recognising minority rights, attempts to involve the island’s aboriginal communities in developmental ventures must take the form of genuine action to sustain traditional customs and prosperity. These actions should give power to indigenous self-governance and indigenous control over their own destinies in contemporary Taiwan.

As corporations and governments have become increasingly pressured to conform to international standards to enhance responsible trading regimes, so the question of how to incorporate developmental mindsets into business agendas becomes all the more relevant. International norms for the advancement of responsible and transparent trading relations have opened up opportunity for grassroots actors and movements to elevate local concerns to the level of international priorities. This, then, is the central priority for today’s con-ference: to identify the strategies available to empower the local level to realise the developmental rewards of increased international engagement, as this relates specifically to the context of Taiwan and the survival of its indigenous communities.

In the absence of international diplomatic recognition, it is through Taiwan’s trade relationships that the island will be able to enjoy a more active and meaningful engagement on the international stage. The forging of bilateral trade partnerships will offer Taiwan an important competitive edge, more bargaining clout globally, and opportunity to make demands in the name of national priorities and the wellbeing of its citizens. Given Taiwan’s track record thus far in minority representation and in providing the political space for indi-genous voices to be heard, the island is well-equipped institutionally to ensure that the returns on deeper levels of trade and investment will be distributed.

Incorporating human rights considerations into FTA agreements is a measure that is essential to promote sustainable and socially re-sponsible trade. Trade agreements can no longer be seen as exclusive from the local developmental and human rights considerations that are inevitably impacted on by these high-level negotiations. It is my hope that the following discussions will offer lasting solutions for the sustainable development of Taiwan’s indigenous communities under the EU-Taiwan trading framework.

Thank you.

11

Speech by Marino BusdachinGeneral Secretaryof the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO)

I am honoured to welcome you to today’s conference on Taiwan’s indigenous peoples. We are deeply grateful to Metin Kazak and his office for their support in convening this event on a topic we jointly believe deserves special focus in light of ongoing discussion about deepening the existing EU-Taiwan trade partnership. I would also like to thank the Taiwanese representation in Belgium for their sup-port, as well as the Taiwanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and extend a special word of welcome to Dr Wan-li Wang, Deputy Ambassador to the Taipei Representative Office in the EU and Belgium. Special thanks also go to the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy for their support from farther afield.

Taiwan’s unique culture and societal reform has positioned the island at the forefront of minority representation in South East Asia. A founding member of the UNPO in February 1991, Taiwan’s path towards democratic consolidation is a particularly noteworthy one. In considering the integral contribution of Taiwan’s indigenous peoples to this democratisation process, it is necessary that we adopt a historical perspective.

Throughout the period of Taiwan’s colonisation, the island’s indigenous peoples have borne the highest costs. The transformation of the west coast into rice fields and the subsequent industrialisation of the island under Japanese rule were made possible by the appro-priation of aboriginal lands.

The story of Taiwan’s historical “development”, therefore, is intimately connected to the story of indigenous exploitation through such practices including land grabbing, forcible relocation and cultural assimilation.

Since the lifting of martial law in 1987, Taiwan has witnessed a gradual, nonviolent shift from an authoritarian regime to its current liberal-democratic system. Taiwan continues to seek full participation as a sovereign entity in international forums such as the World Health Organization. The denial of UN membership for Taiwan, and lack of recognition by those major states that align with the PRC’s “One China” policy, has contributed to Taiwan’s precarious state in the international arena. For all Taiwan’s economic and political achie-vements, the extent to which Taiwanese people are fully able to enjoy the fruits of their democratisation and human rights is limited.The UNPO believes that Taiwan should be granted full participation in the United Nations, and all its specialised agencies. Denying Taiwan international recognition prevents the Taiwanese people from realising their right to self-determination and violates interna-tional law.

The role of the island’s 14 officially recognised native tribes, comprising approximately 2% of the overall population, has been a key element in Taiwan’s democratic transition. Despite being frequently overlooked in appraisals of Taiwan’s progress, the aboriginal con-tribution to Taiwan’s transition to a multi-party democracy is unique and offers a fascinating perspective into the island’s democratic trajectory. With the establishment of the Alliance of Taiwan Aborigines (ATA) in 1984, the aboriginal people of Taiwan played an early role in the campaign for greater representation and recognition. Having approached the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations, the ATA was amongst those organisations that laid the foundations for the landmark UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII).

Since then, Taiwan has taken a lead in ensuring political representation for its aboriginal citizens with constitutional amendments in 1992 establishing protection for aboriginal language and culture. The founding of the Council of Aboriginal Affairs in 1996 to give indige-nous people control of indigenous policies represented a milestone for Taiwan’s domestic policy and set an important precedent for the rest of the region. The 2001 Basic Law on the Guarantee of Human Rights submitted to the Legislative Yuan included strong language to protect indigenous rights. Today, it is the Council of Indigenous Peoples that coordinates aboriginal affairs on the island, and we are privileged to have with us this afternoon a representative from the CIP, Ms Yedda Palemeq, who will speak more on the work of the Council a little later.

The UNPO commends the Taiwanese government in its recognition of minority rights and in its work in contributing to a flourishing democratisation in the Asia-Pacific region. The UNPO also welcomes the country’s attempts to embrace its indigenous peoples and to build a more inclusive and open society.

Pro-indigenous policies and legal arrangements are not enough: the safeguarding of indigenous rights depends on strong enforcement to prevent non-indigenous corporations and individuals from violating these provisions. It is in this regard that the promotion of a re-sponsible trading framework under the EU-Taiwan partnership may serve to have a lasting and tangible impact in supporting the rights and development of the island’s indigenous peoples.

Thank you.

12

Speech by Dr Wan-Li WangDeputy Ambassador to the Taipei Representative Office in the EU and Belgium

Mr Metin Kazak, Mr Marino Busdachin, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.

First of all I would like to express our sincere appreciation to Mr Kazak, a very good friend of Taiwan in the European Parliament, and to Mr Busdachin, for organising this conference to support the indigenous people in Taiwan. Our country has undergone comprehensive transformation since its foundation a century ago. From the 1950s onwards, our citizens began to enjoy greater political and social free-dom and in 1987, the government finally adopted a multiparty democratic system.

The transition to democracy was, and continues to be, a time of great and important change. This change has proved to be constructive for the indigenous people in Taiwan. Consisting of just over 2% of Taiwan’s total population of 23 million, the indigenous people of Taiwan have lived on the islands for thousands of years. From the mid-seventeenth century, up to the present time, the indigenous people – or aboriginal peoples as they are also known – have been subjected to profound change. It shouldn’t be denied that as with many indigenous populations around the world at the turn of the twentieth century, those in Taiwan also suffered difficult conditions. Government policies ignored aboriginal rights, resulting in the further disenfranchisement of the people and the loss of their culture and traditions.

However, Taiwan’s move towards a liberal democracy in the 1980s gave indigenous people opportunity to reclaim their rights to land, traditions and culture. Since then, increased political and public attention has been paid to the rights and social issues of the indigenous tribes of Taiwan and they have realised gains in both the political and economic spheres.

The first NGO specifically dedicated to promoting and protecting the rights and interests of indigenous peoples, The Alliance of Taiwa-nese Aborigines, was founded in 1984. By 1994, the Constitution was amended with indigenous peoples finally being recognised as original inhabitants rather than mountain compatriots.

In 2002, the Council of Indigenous Peoples was formally set up under the cabinet, in the Executive Yuan, with an organisational structu-re revised to include training, education and culture, health and welfare, economic and public construction, and a land management de-partment. This marked a new milestone in Taiwan’s national policy, providing consistent and progressive formulation and the inclusion of indigenous policies and coordinated training for the full-scale development of indigenous society appropriate for the new century.

Today, aborigines form an important part of Taiwanese society. They are currently represented by 6 of 113 members in the Parliament – the legislative Yuan. Beginning in 1998, the official curriculum in Taiwanese schools was changed to contain more frequent and positive references to Taiwanese aborigines.

Recently, indigenous students have begun to receive subsidies for higher education and some municipal governments have depart-ments solely dedicated to assisting aborigines. Indigenous languages are now supported by authorities and a special affirmative action programme has been put into practice.

A new Education Act for indigenous peoples was adopted in 2004 and a basic law for indigenous peoples was introduced in 2005. Taiwan Indigenous Television – the first television station in Asia fully dedicated to an indigenous population was launched in July 2005. There has been an undoubted resurgence in aboriginal ethnic pride which has been exemplified by an increase in popularity of aboriginal culture, music customs and language.

Though progress is ongoing, there remain a number of still-unrealised goals in this area and the wider indigenous population is now more unequal than they were 20 or even 10 years ago. They often remain on the lowest rungs of the legal and socio-economic ladders.

Although relations between the government and indigenous groups are generally positive, household income for indigenous people remains significantly lower than the national average and the unemployment rate is higher. The Council of Indigenous Peoples works with other government ministries to raise living standards.

This conference and panel discussion in the European Parliament, an institution whose very name is enshrined with the fundamental values of freedom, democracy and human rights, aims to reflect on the achievement made and the challenges ahead for Taiwan and its indigenous communities. We hope that you will see that Taiwan is itself a beacon for peace and democracy in the Asia-Pacific region and aims to be a model for promoting and protecting the rights of minorities around the world.

For this conference, we are delighted to welcome three experts from Taiwan: Professor Yu Ching-Hsin, Vice-President of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy; Professor Tsai Chih Wei, Assistant Professor with a research focus on indigenous law and international hu-man rights law as well as board member on the Council of Indigenous Peoples; and Yedda Palemeq, Program Officer at the International Affairs section of the Council of Indigenous Peoples.

Thank you again for organising this conference. We hope that this conference can continue to support and promote Taiwan’s policies and activities for indigenous peoples’ interests and rights.

13

The Contemporary context of Taiwanese society

Moderator: Mr Metin Kazak, MEP

Taiwan’s Indigenous Peoples: Participation in the Republic of China’s Development and

Democratisation

Dr. Ching-Hsin Yu – Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (Taiwan)

Taiwan’s Participation in the International Arena: Challenges and Opportunities

Michael Danielsen – Taiwan Corner (Denmark)

UNDRIPs and Indigenous Self-Government in Taiwan: a Legal Framework under Construction

Prof Tsai Chih Wei – National Dong Hwa University (Taiwan)

Tsai Chih Wei, Michael Danielsen, Ching-Hsin Yu

Panel I

14

Taiwan’s Indigenous Peoples: Participation in the Republic of China’s Development and Democratisation Dr. Ching-Hsin Yu Taiwan Foundation for Democracy

Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen.

It is my great pleasure to speak here today before such a distinguished audience. First and foremost, I would like to express my grati-tude to Mr Metin Kazak, MEP and Mr Marino Busdachin, UNPO General Secretary, for organising this timely and relevant conference on Taiwan’s indigenous people. My gratitude also goes to Dr Wang Wan-li, Deputy Representative for Taipei, for his kind and logistical assistance.

My assignment here not only includes representing the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, but also to discuss the topic of the indige-nous people in Taiwan. My main focus is Political Science, which is also my university expertise.

This slide offers a brief introduction to the indigenous people in Taiwan. We have fourteen officially recognised indigenous tribes and a particular developmental process by which to identify each group. The identification issue often presents something of a problem in determining who belongs to which tribe and how to differentiate one tribe from another.

On this geographic distribution of Taiwan, you can see that most of the indigenous people are located in the mountains, as opposed to rural, areas – particularly in the central mountain areas. Because the outside areas are the most urbanised, the indigenous peoples are therefore concentrated in the less-developed, mountainous areas.

The next diagram shows the population of the 14 indigenous tribes. One can see that there are some big differences among population numbers. The Amis, Atayal and the Paiwan are the three most populous tribes in Taiwan. For there to be a reasonable political arran-gement and adequate representation, the population number of each tribe matters. The way in which we deal with the representation issue presents a challenge with which we are still struggling.

This graph shows indigenous electoral participation. The indigenous people in Taiwan are classified either as mountain or plains abori-gines. Here the voting behaviour of both groups is a little lower than that of the non-indigenous peoples. In the most recent legislative elections, the non-indigenous population had a turn-out rate of around 74%. The turn-out rate for the plains aborigines was 58%, whilst that of the mountain aborigines was 65%. Relatively speaking, indigenous peoples have a lower turn-out rate in elections compared to non-indigenous peoples.

Partisan support has received interest from a number of political scientists, me included. Aboriginal peoples have a more political lea-ning to the pan-blue camp, and less to the pan-green. In the Taiwanese legislature, there are only six seats out of a total of 113 seats for aborigines – three for plains aborigines and 3 for mountain aborigines.

When it comes to the legislative behaviour of indigenous legislators, aboriginal delegates tend to respond to the “electorate’s interest”. The electorate is not confined to the voters registered in their respective constituency, but all indigenous voters. There is therefore no substantial differentiation between the mountain and plains area legislatures – they take care of all indigenous issues.

Between 1993 and 2008, it has been shown that 93% of the bills were proposed by 10 indigenous legislatures. The main concerns inclu-de education, economic development, autonomy, reserved land ownership, natural resource management and compensation. Right now, most focus is given to social welfare, education, and the land reform issue in Taiwan.

For two decades, there has been an effort by the government to introduce affirmative action campaigns in the way of civil, political and social rights. That 2% of the total population has been accorded 5% of the total legislative seats in Parliament means that the gover-nment has offered aboriginal people representation in the legislative Yuan – a guarantee protected by the Constitution. There is also medical insurance, subsidies, social security, pensions, as well as educational and cultural subsidies.

There are therefore a number of benefits that have been implemented for quite some time, but the question is whether current efforts are sufficient.

As mentioned by the Deputy Representative earlier, the indigenous family total income is 36% of the average family income: that is, less than half. There is also a college education gap between indigenous and non-indigenous Taiwanese: 11.87% vs. 26.41%. The indigenous unemployment rate is 5.02% whilst the total unemployment rate is 4.21%. Life expectancy for the indigenous population is eight years less than that of the total population.

Although the government has adopted many policies to enhance and promote the social welfare of the indigenous people, there is still much to do: we have to do more in social science to enhance education and extend broader benefits to indigenous people. The situation thus far shows that there is some fine-tuning to do.

15

There is still some debate between the state and tribes on the issue of indigenous autonomy. With regards to political representation among the indigenous groups, recall the first slide where we had an uneven population distribution among each tribe. If we want to have a real political representation for each tribe, we have to deal with how to construct a consensus regarding the sending of represen-tatives to participate in the political process. Regular and systematic surveys of indigenous people need to be undertaken with regards to civil, political and social conditions – perhaps annually.

Continuous advocacy at home and abroad is also extremely important. Recently, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) was finalised. It appears to me that we should look into the possibility of a Convention on the Elimination All Forms of Discrimination against Indigenous Peoples (CEDAIP), which would build on Taiwan’s current focus on its aboriginal people.

In a short conclusion, we have made progress over the last two decades, but there is still more to be done. Cultural, and not only policy change is necessary to eliminate existing discrimination against indigenous peoples. I will now hand

Taiwan’s Presence in the International Arena: Challenges and OpportunitiesMichael DanielsenTaiwan Corner

I feel deeply honoured to be here and present a talk at this conference on indigenous people in Taiwan. I am profoundly impressed with Taiwan’s indigenous cultures, which I experienced in Hualian in Taiwan some years ago.

I am also delighted that Taiwan’s democracy provides Taiwan’s indigenous people with a strong voice. My expertise is however not indigenous people and I therefore think it is far better for all of us that I focus on Taiwan’s presence in the international arena.

My name is Michael Danielsen. I am chairman of the Danish-based Taiwan Corner. Taiwan Corner’s mission is to inform and spread knowledge about Taiwan. I have around 15 years of experience with Taiwan and visit the island 1-2 times per year. I comment frequently on Taiwan-related issues in Taiwan and in Denmark.

Taiwan never stops surprising me. I guess it is related to Taiwan’s unique presence in the international arena and its convoluted history.

When we think about Taiwan, we have a tendency to think about China. But Taiwan and China have been separated for more than 115 years and have grown apart. Taiwan was only ever a province of China for 10 years, from 1885 to 1895. The Spanish, Dutch, Chinese, Japanese and Americans have to varying degrees shaped Taiwan’s history.

Taiwan is also a story about a people’s struggle for freedom and recognition. After 40 years of authoritarian rule, all people in Taiwan won a big victory when democracy was introduced in 1992.

The victory has not yet been translated into international recognition. Today, Taiwan has diplomatic relations with only 23 typically small nations. Taiwan could have been a member of the UN today if a reality check had been made when Taiwan lost its permanent seat on the UN Security Council in 1971.

In an effort to describe Taiwan’s international presence today, I think Gerald Chan put it very well when he stated in 1997 that:

Taiwan is “financially rich, but diplomatically poor”

This statement points to both Taiwan’s challenges but also to its opportunities.

Being financially rich gives Taiwan opportunities. Taiwan has the financial power to meet and talk with the world, and is able to finance a smart public diplomacy program.

Taiwan is also among the top 20 industrial nations and trades with the entire world. The island is well-known for its expertise in high technology, machine tools and in many other areas.

Whilst Taiwan is diplomatically poor, it has around 92 representative offices in around 57 countries. Many EU countries are represented in Taiwan including my own country of Denmark.

Due to Taiwan’s diplomatic weakness, the EU’s relationship with Taiwan is crucial. The reason for this is that Taiwan’s international sta-tus is defined by its relationship with other nations. This is of course true for other nations as well but it is of more importance to Taiwan.

16

An example of one influence on Taiwan’s international status is the EU’s recent visa waiver to Taiwan.

In the relationship between the EU and Taiwan, trade and democracy are essential ingredients. I am encouraged that the recent annual consultation meeting on non-trade issues of the European Union Centre in Taiwan turned out successfully.

The EU-Taiwan relationship is of even greater consequence today because Taiwan is more sensitive to current changes in the world trade system than most other nations.

Today, nation states can no longer provide the same assurances to their citizens as before, because numerous economic decisions are taken elsewhere by companies, world unions or other international actors. They operate above governments and for this reason, gover-nments need to create or enter trade agreements in which countries can obtain greater control.

This development challenges Taiwan because it is typically not invited into trade agreements as a result of China’s obstructions. Taiwan has the opportunity to utilise its uniqueness even further to break this trend, in addition to its democratic brand and its industrial background.

Taiwan has to break the cycle of its exclusion from trade zones in Asia, such as ASEAN, with 10 Asian countries that now talk about an ASEAN +6 regional free trade agreement framework.

In response to this development, Taiwan’s government has decided to move towards China, with whom Taiwan has signed several tra-de agreements. The most well known is the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, also known as ECFA. The way in which this political agenda has been handled by Taiwan’s government will in my opinion diminish Taiwan’s international presence.

Taiwan’s largest opposition party, the DPP, is also supportive of talks and trade agreements with China. It is illustrative that the opposi-tion DPP focuses more on trade diversification and the current international status of Taiwan than the governing KMT.

Taiwan needs to diversify its trade regime and build a stronger knowledge economy in order to stay financially rich. Cooperation betwe-en the EU and Taiwan has the potential to secure such diversity and both can benefit economically. As Copenhagen Economics has pointed out, whilst the EU has stronger expertise in various service industries, it is technologically weaker than Taiwan. As I understand from various sources, Taiwan has to present a much stronger commitment to lowering various tariff and non-tariff barriers in order to allow for closer cooperation.

Taiwan’s biggest international opportunity is its democratic brand. This can function as an effective defence against Taiwan’s challen-ges. Democracy is also the key to solving Taiwan’s internal divisions.

How can the EU and Taiwan cooperate on democracy?

At the recent EU-Taiwan meeting in Taiwan, I found the exchanges about enhancing information protection and promoting multilateral contacts between the judiciary and executive agencies of Taiwan and the EU particularly encouraging.

Taiwanese democracy has fallen in the international rankings during the past 4 years as reported by the US-based Freedom House.

As a friend of freedom and democracy in Taiwan, the EU should therefore challenge Taiwan on its recent democratic development, and ensure among other things that former president Chen receives fair and humane treatment under Taiwan’s legal system, in accordance with international norms.

With regards to civil society issues, the EU and Taiwan can create opportunities for NGOs in Taiwan and the EU to meet and cooperate. Many different NGOs work for democracy, such as the Taiwan Association for Human Rights. The issues confronting indigenous peo-ples represent another important area of focus.

I will end this talk by showing what the Taiwanese want Taiwan’s international presence to be:

74% of the Taiwanese will vote for independence if given a free choice that China will respect

More than 80% of the Taiwanese rejects China’s offer “One Country, two systems”.

In order to create a sustainable development in Taiwan, Taiwan’s presence in the international community should be determined by the 23 million people who are living in Taiwan and no one else.

17

UNDRIPs and Indigenous Self-Government in Taiwan: a Legal Framework under ConstructionDr. Ching-Hsin Yu Taiwan Foundation for Democracy

Thank you Mr Chairman.

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to all distinguished members and guests from across the globe for inviting me and enabling me to share some aspects of the indigenous people (IP) situation in Taiwan. My presentation is about the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and indigenous self-government in Taiwan. But, since it is a contemporary issue, I think it would be useful if I give some background information to understand better the present times.

Originally in Taiwan, the official recognition of indigenous people was only granted to nine indigenous nations. Since 2001, 5 more indigenous nations have been recognised by the government which indicates a positive trend towards the implementation of IPs’ rights and the concept of self-identification.

IPs only represent 2% of the total population in Taiwan. Information on their social situation has already been provided by my colleagues. Regarding life expectancy and income, there is still a gap between IPs and the mainstream population which implies a need to push further in all aspects including the economic, political, social and cultural life of IPs. Historically, the indigenous review policy can be divided into four phases :

• “Make the Mountains like the Plains” (1945 – 1962): no differentiation among indigenous peoples

• Integration and Assimilation (1963 – 1987)

• Reform and Opening Development (1988 – 2000): from 1990s, 5 more indigenous nations were recognised and the use of traditional indigenous names in official documents was allowed

• Subjectivity Development (2001 – current period): towards self-determination and self-government

Starting from the 1990s, various indigenous movements pushed the government to adopt reforms. This included the name rectification movement which, collectively speaking, saw the official recognition of 5 more indigenous tribes. On an individual level, this movement resulted in the name change from “mountain compatriots” to “indigenous persons”. We are now also able to use traditional names in official documents.

There are a series of social movements that have pushed Taiwan forward on indigenous peoples’ rights and we are currently in the last 2 phases: implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of IPs, and looking forward towards indigenous self-determination and self-government.

The evolution of jurisprudence is also translated into 6 reserved seats for indigenous legislators, the inclusion of an indigenous article in our Constitution, and the creation of the cabinet-level Council of Indigenous Peoples. Also, in 2010, the DPP government of Taiwan signed a new partnership agreement with IPs. Since then, we have passed the most important piece of legislation which is the Basic Law for Indigenous Peoples.

The contemporary Indigenous legal status has 3 aspects:

• Implementation of the restoration of justice : correct the past wrongs since policy of integration and assimilation

• Promote multiculturalism to achieve substantive equality

• Implementation of autonomy, self-government and self-determination

All aspects are embedded in the IP’s Basic Act adopted in 2005. Article 1 declares that “this law is enacted for the purpose of protecting the fundamental rights of IPs, promoting their subsistence and development, and building inter-ethnic relations based on coexistence and prosperity”.

The foundation of the IP’s Basic Law relies on:

• Indigenous self-government

• Entrenchment of indigenous land, traditional territory and natural resources

• Effective participation and free, prior, informed consent

The IP’s Basic Act, the new partnership agreement and the indigenous article in the Constitution construct the legal framework for the implementation of indigenous human rights. Moreover, in 2009, our legislative Yuan has enacted the implementing act for the two international covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.

18

The Draft Bill on indigenous self-government has been criticised by several groups across Taiwan especially because the government has already added three notes to the Draft which do not allow any modification regarding previous indigenous autonomy laws, existing local

authority or indigenous autonomy region laws. Therefore, despite general agreement on the Draft, these notes go against the implementation of the so-called self-government.

The Protection Act for the traditional intellectual creations of IPs, enacted in 2007, is of most concern for IPs since there is a huge gap in economic development between IPs and mainstream society. The Act guarantees the active development and preservation of indigenous traditional values, institutions and processes. If implemented, it would lay the structure for a self-government mode of tribal culture and economic resources in the management of indigenous traditional intellectual creations as a critical model.

In conclusion, IPs have the right to be indigenous. Whether talking about cultural diversity or multiculturalism, what is the essence of these differences? It is the way we can understand IPs’ human rights. In fact, if we cannot see through the unique differences between IPs and non-IPs, then we will always see IPs as people we need to support instead of collaborating with them.

We therefore need to re-think community development and partnership agreements with the government because we have to know who speaks for whom. There is also a need for more effective indigenous participation and more accountability for these nations, in addition to the recognition of indigenous laws and authorities. Free, prior and informed consent should also be implemented at all levels of indigenous policy.

Thank you very much.

Tsai Chih Wei (National Dong Hwa University)

Michael Danielsen(Taiwan Corner)

Ching-Hsin Yu (Taiwan Foundation For Democracy)

19

Moderator: Mr Marino Busdachin (UNPO)

An Emerging Corporate Social Responsibility – Soft Law Interface: Pathway toward Grassroots Empowerment?

Prof. Kevin T. Jackson – Solvay Brussels School of Economics and

Management (Belgium)

From “To Have” towards “To Be”: Council of Indigenous Peoples and its Five Operation Principles

Yedda Palemeq – Council of Indigenous Peoples (Taiwan)

Advancing a Human Rights Agenda through the EU-Taiwan Partnership: Deepening Trade and Common Development

Joëlle Hivonnet – European External Action Service (Belgium)

Joëlle Hivonnet, Yedda Palemeq, Kevin T Jackson

Strategies of Support to Taiwan’s Indigenous PeoplesPanel II

20

An Emerging Corporate Social ResponsibilitySoft Law Interface: Pathway toward Grassroots Empowerment?Kevin JacksonSolvay Brussels School of Economics and Management

It is an honour to be here today speaking for this conference. Before I begin I would just like to say “thank you” to Lu Yu-cheng for that beautiful singing performance. Because I was seated right next to her, the vibrations of the songs are still reverberating through my whole being. Since my most recent book Virtuosity in Business (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012) relates the fields of music and business, arguing that music provides an inspirational model for a greatness to which business could aspire, I have a special appreciation for the special contribution this singer has made to this conference.

In this paper I will discuss the potential that global economic governance regimes carry for promoting grassroots empowerment of indigenous peoples. In particular the notion of a “soft law-CSR” interface may offer a way of creating new varieties of development initiatives – including respect for sustainability, human rights, rule of law and democratic participation for indigenous groups -- that does not rely exclusively, or even predominately, on traditional institutions of public authority.

While much of what I shall say here applies generally to indigenous people in different countries around the world, the case of Taiwan offers intriguing possibilities for advancing the vision of such a CSR-soft law linkage. First, European business makes up the most sizable group of foreign investors in Taiwan, with a combined value of approximately 22 billion euro.

Second, the joint venture model that many European enterprises have adopted has successfully blended European expertise with Taiwan’s expansive local knowledge and talent. Third, not only has Taiwan managed to build up a knowledge- and innovation-based economy, it can be counted among the liberal democracies in East Asia.

In this respect, many of Taiwan’s policies regarding human rights, democracy, labour and environmental standards stem from values that the ROC shares with the EU, in stark contrast to situations obtaining in many other Asian countries.

Trends in Global Economic Governance

Although traditionally corporate governance has been shaped by substantive law promulgated by governmental authority, today’s transnational businesses function within a new consortium of authorities. Spheres of authority once reserved to government are now shared with a multiplicity of non-state delegations: nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), ad hoc coalitions, multinational companies, industry associations, international secretariats, intergovernmental organisations (IGOs), and various private sector entities and other civil society actors.

Such transnational actors are increasingly expected to shoulder global moral obligations. As I argued in Charting Global Responsibilities: Legal Philosophy and Human Rights (University Press of America, 1994) business enterprises are, as a matter of philosophical first principles, obligated to respect human rights. And increasingly, business firms are being called upon to promote sustainability, advance social welfare, and preserve the “ecology” of free markets - and they are held accountable more and more through their reputations, which I would count as their most valuable, albeit often elusive, intangible asset. In my book Building Reputational Capital (Oxford University Press, 2004) – translated into Chinese by Xinhua Press (2006) - I examined reputation (in contradistinction from “image” and “identity”) and highlighted the significant role it plays in shaping political, legal, economic and moral issues as they arise in the global public realm.

In contrast to traditional ways of thinking, the time has come for embracing a holistic vision of economic development grounded in these notions:

1. “Glocalization” wherein local communities themselves analyse to what degree they choose to preserve links with national and international economies and experiment with ways to pursue strategies for self-reliance.

2. Wealth Creation brought about by transforming finance into a global commons where public and private wealth exists in a synergetic relationship and where a shift to human-centred forms of development is witnessed.

3. Restructuring of global economic governance because current arrangements threaten democracy, human rights and the rights of states to self-determination, and perpetuate inequitable wealth distribution.

4. Transitioning toward a more sustainable and more spiritually enriched civilisation, including enjoyment of the following kinds of human goods:

• Natural and biodegradable products • Organic food• Clean energy• Pure water

21

• Living in a close relationship with nature• Tolerance for other races, religions, ethnicities and cultures• High degree of local democracy and local autonomy• Breaking away from relations of domination to relations of partnership that are patterned after organising principles seen in

the functioning of wholesome living systems.

So with regard to indigenous peoples, a CSR-Soft Law interface holds promise for providing opportunities for gaining power on local, regional, national, and international levels. Supported by what I have termed the “rule of reputation,” (See, Kevin T. Jackson, “Global Corporate Governance: Soft Law and Reputational Accountability” 35(1) Brooklyn Journal of International Law (2010), the identity and culture of indigenous groups are politically and economically significant as a form of “soft power”: they can be used to gain not only legitimacy, they also can provide a basis for advancing alternative approaches to consumption, wealth production, and profit.

Associations of indigenous groups, such as cooperatives, can be fruitful partners for socially responsible corporations that are looking beyond profit maximisation to pursue broader social and environmental concerns. To be sure, many organic and Fair Trade programs are currently organised through cooperatives. Many of these programs around the world are intended to be democratic and participatory. They aim to benefit their members by developing economic programs to underwrite social programs. Some examples include increasing eco- and ethno-tourists and attracting international donations to support community development projects such as water sanitation projects, educational projects to build schools, securing land against invasion, disease prevention workshops, and so on.

Don’t Be Naïve

Paraphrasing a bit from Google’s mantra “Don’t Be Evil” we might do well to temper our optimism for CSR with the caveat “Don’t Be Naïve.”

What I mean is that it is important to be mindful of a variety of potential perils inherent in international indigenous politics, together with the drawbacks revealed by some even well-intentioned efforts to make global markets work for socioeconomically marginalised groups. Here one thinks of the notorious fallout from the Amazon Coop, founded in 1998 by representatives of the FUNAI (Brazilian National Indian Agency) and the UK cosmetics company, The Body Shop, which formalised trade links between indigenous Brazil nut harvesters and the multinational business firm. A cautionary lesson to be gleaned from that case and many others across the globe is that in the absence of genuine participation and democratic decision making, cooperative members are sometimes ill-equipped to undertake their own self-development. Instead, such public-private partnerships can backfire if they simply relegate indigenous people to the role of labourers working to finance their continued development in line with diktats of local governmental and foreign interests.

The idea is not to condemn CSR as such, but to consider possible strategies for ameliorating some of its dangers, and transforming momentary political opportunities into enduring alliances or achievements. Here are just a few points to consider:

Economic changes are inherently social; so even when partnerships are able to provide substantial material gains to indigenous people it is vital to guard against:

(1) making indigenous people more vulnerable and increasing their dependency on outsiders; (2) creating problematic new needs and reducing interest in traditional customs; (3) failing to include indigenous people as informed participants in their own development; (4) masking effects of unfavourable governmental policies; and (5) perpetuating discriminatory distinctions among indigenous people.

As an illustration, consider ecotourism. An obvious benefit of ecotourism is the employment opportunities it can provide for indigenous people. Yet often tourism operations are owned and run by foreign corporations, which consequently can provide little or no lasting benefit for the local population. Revenues can get siphoned off to foreign investors instead of being reinvested in the community, environmental resources are sometimes degraded, and the needs of the local indigenous groups can become marginalised.

Conclusion

In light of concerns like these, I believe it is important not to abandon hope in instituting new kinds of governance systems, but rather to become more astute in detecting the normative shortcomings sometime seen in CSR, and righting them. For this reason, I propose that the most defensible conception for global economic governance is a regulative and not a constitutive one. By this I mean that we ought

to comprehend ideals like sustainability, democracy, rule of law, and human rights in the Kantian sense, as ideals that, like beauty, are approached even if never fully realized. It is vital that institutions and actors strive to make global economic governance schemes, and the standards and decisions coming from them transparent, consistent, fair, humane and reasonable. When successful, that is to say, when they attain a reasonable degree of legitimacy, sound economic governance arrangements should be upheld with an intensive moral commitment to cosmopolitanism.

To proceed from the perspective of a regulative conception confers the following advantage: whatever contradictions or inconsistencies that are exposed will function not as an excuse for retreating into nihilism but instead as further inducements to press forward with optimism. Uncovering corruption, injustices, and “legitimacy gaps” should serve not as a basis for disillusionment but instead as strong incentives to renew our commitments to making noble ideals like sustainable development and respect for human rights of indigenous peoples come true. In the immortal words of Alexander Pope: “hope springs eternal.”

22

From “To Have” towards “To Be”: Council of Indigenous Peoples and its Five Operation PrinciplesYedda Palemeq Council of Indigenous Peoples

Mr. Kazak, MEP, General Secretary of the UNPO Mr. Busdachin, Deputy Representative of the Taipei Office Dr. Wang, panelists, ladies and gentlemen

On behalf of the Council of Indigenous Peoples Executive Yuan (referred below as the CIP or the Council) and Minister Paelabang danapan, I would like to express appreciation for this opportunity to speak to you about our work for the indigenous peoples in Taiwan. The Minister would very much have liked to be here and share this work himself, but unfortunately, he could not. On the day I left Taiwan, he was standing before many law-makers in the Legislative Yuan and defending the Council’s annual budget from their merciless scythe. In other words, he was making sure this Council continues to exist, so that we will have future opportunities to share our work at another occasion such as this.

The CIP and Europe

In terms of international connection, the CIP has close ties with North America and the Pacific, but finds only few opportunities to visit Europe. The first visit was in October 2006 when the former Minister Icyang Parod led a group of indigenous magistrates to the Sami people in Scandinavia. The second visit was this past February when the incumbent Minister Paelabang danapan led a similar group of indigenous representatives to Universiteit Leiden and Nationaal Archief in the Netherlands.

The purpose of the first visit was to befriend the Sami people and share experiences of survival and development, whilst that of the second was to find some lost stories of our people that lay buried under piles of written Dutch sources and maps. I personally was involved on both occasions as an interpreter. Now with this third visit to Europe, it is my pleasure to tell you how the work of the Council throughout the years resembles a combination of its two European visits. It moves along five principles from the concept of ‘to have’ under a developmental scheme towards that of ‘to be’ which can only be enlightened when one knows and embraces who he or she is from a deep understanding of history.

The Creation of the CIP

The CIP was officially established on 10 December 1996, after active indigenous movements since the early 1980s compelled its creation. Three decades ago, indigenous activists mobilised by the Association of Promoting Taiwanese Aboriginal Rights (founded in 1984) protested against injustice and claimed for indigenous rights. Among their claims, the following ones were of primary importance: ‘Call Me by the Right Name-Indigenous People’, ‘Give Me a Voice in the Central Government’, ‘Return My Land’ and ‘Return My Mother Tongue’.

The final birth of the CIP in the mid-1990s was in the words of Minister Paelabang danapan “appropriate, reasonable and just”. Not only did it answer the earlier call of indigenous activists but it also effected an elevation and a focalisation of indigenous affairs in the government. More importantly, the making of the CIP created the opportunity to realise other claims related to name, land and language.

The Organisation of the CIP

As a government organisation, the CIP has five departments, three offices (secretariat, personnel and accounting), one task-oriented committee of laws and regulations and one affiliated cultural park administration office. The Council is headed by a minister who is assisted by three deputy ministers and a chief secretary, and a special commission composed of 14 representatives from each officially recognised indigenous group (Amis, Paiwan, Atayal, Bunun, Truku, Puyuma, Rukai, Seediq, Tsou, Saisyat, tao, Kavalan, Thao and Sakizaya), representatives from other central government organisations and scholars or specialists to monitor the Council and to propose new policies.

Up to August 2012, the CIP has 151 official employees, slightly under the authorised complement of 166. There are more male than female staff member, and 85% of the staff is either a BA or a MA graduate, whose average age is below 45. On the whole, the Council is young as a government body, as are those that work in it. For the past sixteen years since its foundation, the CIP has been working towards the promotion of the political, social, land and cultural rights of Taiwan’s indigenous populations, and it has been operating along the following five principles.

The First Principle: To Be Politically and Legally Settled

The first principle is ‘to be politically and legally settled’, which has to do with the political rights of indigenous peoples. To reach this goal, the CIP must make a breakthrough in both political and legal terms. The term ‘indigenous people’ was first included in the third Constitution amendment on 1 August 1994. After that it opened the door for settling the political and legal rights of indigenous peoples.

23

Important events took place one after another: the Council was established in 1996; the ‘Indigenous People Status Act’ was passed in 2001; the ‘Indigenous Peoples Basic Act’ followed in 2005; and the ‘CIP Implementation Directions for Promoting Indigenous Tribal Council’ was approved in 2007.

Most recently, the Council has been working on its ‘Draft Indigenous Self-Government Act’. This piece of legislation has entered the Legislative Yuan and left without a reading for four times. At the moment, it sits within the Executive Yuan, waiting for its fifth chance to enter the review agenda of the Legislative Yuan. One indigenous lawmaker expects it to happen in April of 2013. These political and legal arrangements are of the utmost importance because they set the foundation for indigenous administration, identity, recognition, basic rights, self-governance and management.

In a law-abiding democratic society such as Taiwan, to be politically and legally settled confirms that the very existence of indigenous populations should be respected and protected.

The Second Principle: To Be Practically Settled

The second principle is ‘to be practically settled’, which has to do with the social rights of indigenous peoples such as employment protection, health care and social welfare. In order to secure employment opportunities for indigenous peoples, the Council pushed the adoption of ‘Indigenous Peoples Employment Rights Protection Act’ in 2001. It also offers services such as career training and employment counselling.

In terms of indigenous health care, the Council subsidises indigenous peoples for their visits to a medical centre and their National Health Insurance. The CIP has an annual budget of 72 billion NTD. According to an analysis of its expenditure this year, the Council has spent about 20 billion NTD on social welfare policies including emergency aid, child and women welfare, elderly care, social security and old age pension, to which an indigenous person above the age of 55 is entitled. Old Age pension and national health insurance subsidy are by far the largest expenses of the Council. In other words, almost one third of the Council’s budget goes to the care of indigenous peoples’ basic needs. Improving the living standard of indigenous peoples remains the primary task.

The Third Principle: To Be Economically Settled

The third principle is ‘to be economically settled’, which has to do with the land rights of indigenous peoples. In many countries, social planning is often made without the FPIC (the free, prior and informed consent) of indigenous peoples. As such, planning ignores indigenous cultures and creates a negative impact on the lives of indigenous populations and their means of living. As a result, regional and international indigenous movements were organised to redress the wrong, and indigenous activists demanded the protection of indigenous peoples’ land, territory and natural resources.

According to the ‘Indigenous Peoples Basic Act’, indigenous populations in Taiwan hold the rights to their land and natural resources. They have the right to live safely on their land and to use or manage the land and natural resources according to their own customs. It is for the first time that the term ‘indigenous land’ is put in a piece of legislation. It is also clearly defined as ‘indigenous reserve land and indigenous traditional territory’. This improvement inspires discussions and discourses on indigenous land rights.

However, the Council has not yet completed its ‘Draft Indigenous Land and Sea Act’. More cooperation from both administrative and judicial departments is still needed to accomplish this task and to safeguard the land right of the peoples.

The Fourth Principle: To Be Culturally Settled

The fourth principle is ‘to be culturally settled’, which has to do with the cultural rights of indigenous peoples. A people without culture are a people without life. To provide legal protection of indigenous cultures, the CIP successfully worked towards the adoption of the ‘Indigenous Peoples Education Act’, the ‘Indigenous Peoples Intellectual Property Protection Act’ and the ‘Establishment Articles for Private Legal Person Indigenous Peoples Culture Enterprise Foundation’ respectively in 1998, 2007 and 2008.

Additionally, the operation of culture parks or galleries, the preservation of indigenous languages, the promotion of ethnic education and tribal college as well as the research of annual festivals, rituals and community buildings are all important cultural missions of the Council. The CIP has been discussing the possibility of turning Taiwan Indigenous TV (TITV, established in 2005) into an independent entity under the Indigenous Culture Enterprise Foundation. The Council is also in negotiation with Taiwan Public Television Service Foundation and National Communications Commission to acquire permission to create channels for TITV in the wireless forum.

Nevertheless, the Council recognises that more must be done to help urban indigenous populations feel culturally settled in their alienating environment. Urban indigenous people occupy 44% of the entire indigenous population. In other words, almost half of Taiwan’s indigenous peoples have tremendous difficulties in passing on their own cultures. It is an urgent case for the Council. More needs to be done to help urban indigenous families and communities to be culturally connected with their mother cultures.

The Fifth Principle: To Be Historically Settled

Last but not the least; the fifth principle is ‘to be historically settled’. The so-called Taiwan Miracle spanning the late 20th century until early 21st century is not about economy and politics alone. Another aspect to this miracle is ‘historical reconstruction’. During this period, a large amount of Dutch, Spanish, Chinese and Japanese archives about Taiwan were published. The Council considers it vital to seize this exciting historical moment for the sake of retrieving the place of indigenous peoples in the island’s history. The Council thus established the Indigenous History Commission on 29 January 2010. The Commission is responsible for collecting and editing archival

24

materials about Taiwan’s aborigines. It also seeks to collect indigenous traditions, rituals and festival songs to document and put them on paper.

The principle of reconstructing indigenous history from an indigenous perspective is no less important than the previous four principles.

Conclusion

The five principles from ‘to be politically and legally settled’ towards ‘to be historically settled’ direct the work of the Council. Prior to the Council’s establishment and even during its first four years of existence, many indigenous policies revolved around the idea of ‘to have’ that allowed indigenous peoples to have subsidies and opportunities. Little or insufficient effort was made to foster policies allowing the indigenous peoples ‘to be’ and exert their own agency, creativity, awareness and sense of responsibility.

This transition from ‘to have’ towards ‘to be’ is currently the most important policy of the Council. For the past two years, the Department of Planning and the Department of Education and Culture especially, have created and implemented programs or legislation

empowering indigenous villages, the third semester of indigenous education and the Draft Indigenous Self-Government Act.

Likewise, after noticing how previous economic measures made in accordance with mainstream economy and distribution were prevented from developing indigenous culture, the Department of Economy and Public Construction also works to develop indigenous pop music, media production and culture industries by stimulating indigenous creativity and deepening the strength of indigenous agency.

Important Polices in 2012 by Department

The 16-year-old CIP is the highest central authority in charge of national indigenous affairs. It has been promoting the rights of indigenous societies along the abovementioned five principles.

For the next 16 years or more, ‘construct indigenous subjectivity’ and ‘increase indigenous participation’ will be two major guidelines to help the Council complete the transition from ‘to have’ towards ‘to be’. This transition matters to the indigenous society and the island Taiwan. It is hoped that the transition will bring positive force to the development of indigenous peoples and to the development of the island as a whole.

Thank you.

Joëlle Hivonnet European External Action Service

Yedda Palemeq Council Of Indigenous Peoples

Kevin T Jackson Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management

25

I would like to congratulate the conference organisers, Mr Kazak, Member of the European Parliament and Mr Busdachin, Secretary-General of UNPO. I would also like to thank them for inviting me to this event.

The EU has very good bilateral relations with Taiwan. We have regular contacts at different levels and on different issues. We have been making good progress in concrete cooperation areas, such as science and technology, education and maritime piracy since 2011.

Human rights is the golden thread that runs the Foreign Policy of the EU. So naturally Human Rights are also discussed with Taiwan. We had a chance to exchange views on human rights issues earlier on this month on the occasion of our annual consultations. Professor Kevin might be pleased to hear that Corporate Social Responsibility was one of the topics discussed.

The EU consistently expresses its appreciation for Taiwan’s democracy and respect for human rights. The EU particularly welcomes the decision by Taiwan to incorporate the provisions of the ICCPR and ICESCR into its domestic legislation. We are also pleased with the intention of the Taiwanese authorities to organise an international conference to discuss Taiwan’s first human rights report and Taiwan’s compliance with its obligations stemming from the provisions of ICCPR and ICESCR. This is an interesting initiative, which could set an excellent example for other countries.

Our main concern in Taiwan with regard to human rights is the death penalty. The EU welcomes the de facto moratorium and sincerely hopes that Taiwan will not resume executions but will instead endeavour to move towards abolition.

Every year, EU Delegations throughout the world are encouraged to celebrate the International Day of the World Indigenous Peoples on 9 August. This year again, High Representative Ashton paid tribute to Indigenous Peoples and celebrated their rich cultural heritage and contribution to the world. She also recalled that the EU has supported from the very beginning the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as an important instrument for promoting human rights. Because its full implementation is key to the actual enjoyment of those rights, the EU has repeatedly called on all states to make this a reality.

The EU has a long track record of promoting the human rights of indigenous people in all aspects of our work, from contacts with indigenous representatives to political dialogues and making statements at the United Nations, to giving financial support to civil society projects.

But we can always do more: this is why, in the new EU Human Rights Strategy, we have committed to taking a new look at our policy and further developing it in the context of the UN Declaration and in preparation for the 2014 World Conference on Indigenous Peoples

This event is also important in the context of on-going Taiwanese policies aiming at enhancing living standards and promoting the quality of life of indigenous peoples. In that respect, the EU welcomes measures to promote the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in particular the creation of the Council of Indigenous Peoples – whose work has just been presented by Ms Yedda Palemeq, as well as the Basic Law for Indigenous Peoples.

The EU will remain engaged by Taiwan’s side to promote the enjoyment by all – including Indigenous Peoples – of their Human Rights.

Advancing a Human Rights Agenda through the EU-Taiwan Partnership: Deepening Trade and Common DevelopmentJoëlle Hivonnet European External Action Service

26

Speaker Biographies

Metin Kazak metinkazak.euMember of European Parliament

Metin Kazak (Bulgarian: Метин Казак) is a Bulgarian politician and Member of the European Parliament. He is a member of the Move-ment for Rights and Freedoms. He was first elected to the European Parliament in 2007, and was re-elected in 2009. Mr. Kazak, MEP, is vice-chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and a member of the Committee on International Trade and the Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee. He is also a substitute member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Af-fairs and the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee. Mr. Kazak holds a Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in International and Europe-an law from the University of Bourgogne.

Marino Busdachin unpo.orgUNPO General Secretary

After serving as UNPO Executive Director from 2003-2005, Mr Busdachin was elected as UNPO General Secretary in 2005. He was a member of the Extra-ordinary Executive Board of the Trans-national Radical Party (2000-2002), and is currently a member of the General Council of the TRP. He led the TRP to recognition by the UN as an NGO of the first category, and led and coordinated the TRP in the former Yugoslavia (1991-1993) and in the Soviet Union (1989-1993). He founded the NGO “Non c’e’ Pace Senza Giustizia” in Italy (1994-1999) as well as founding and serving as President of No Peace Without Justice USA (1995-2000). Mr Bu-sdachin campaigned for the establishment of the International Criminal Court.

Michael Danielsen taiwancorner.org Chairman, Taiwan Corner

Michael Danielsen has a Ph.D. in natural sciences and is founder and chairman of the Copenhagen-based association Taiwan Cor-ner (www.taiwancorner.org). Taiwan Corner was established as an independent association in January 2008 with the mission to inform and spread knowledge about Taiwan. Michael Danielsen has since 2008 given lectures about Taiwan, and is a frequent commentator in Danish and Taiwanese media regarding Taiwan’s current affairs. Michael Danielsen is the author to a chapter about Taiwan’s identity in the book “National Identity and Economic in-terests” published in 2012. He was invited by International Com-mittee for Fair Elections in Taiwan (ICFET) to be an election ob-

27

Kevin Jackson solvay.eduDaniel Janssen Chair in Corporate Social Responsibility, Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, ULB

Kevin T. Jackson is Daniel Janssen Chair in Corporate Social Re-sponsibility at the Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Mana-gement, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium since 2011. He was previously Professor of Business Ethics and Law at Fordham Uni-versity’s School of Business in New York City. He has taught at Prin-ceton University, Georgetown University and Peking University in Beijing. A professor of law and ethics at Fordham’s Schools of Busi-ness and academic director of the graduate division’s Three-Conti-nent Master’s in Global Management, he has delivered seminars on business ethics and legal philosophy for organisations and leaders worldwide, and has been a frequent commentator on the CBS Eve-ning News, CNN, Fox News and National Public Radio.

Yedda Palemeqapc.gov.twProgram Officer, Council of Indigenous Peo-ples, Executive Yuan (Taiwan)

Yedda Palemeq is a member of the Paiwan people in Taiwan. After graduating from the History Department of Leiden University in August 2012, she currently works for the Council of Indigenous Pe-oples (CIP) in Taiwan. The CIP is the highest central government body taking care of indigenous affairs on the island. Ms Palemeq will speak at the conference on behalf of current Minister of the CIP, Mr Paelabang danapan (Puyuma people) who, due to prior engagements, is unable to attend the conference personally. As a speaker at the conference, Ms Palemeq will report on the Council’s policies on indigenous affairs, offering perspective on the work of the Taiwanese government in promoting aboriginal concerns and development.

A scholar of Taiwanese indigenous literature, Mr Paelabang Dana-pan is a long-term participant in the development of indigenous ri-ghts on the island. His public roles first as the Vice-minister and now as the Minister of the Council have afforded him an island-wide per-spective and a comprehensive knowledge of indigenous affairs. He has had several publications throughout the years on the island’s de-velopment and has made particular effort to promote international platforms for future cooperation between Taiwan’s indigenous peo-ples and those elsewhere. Since its establishment in 1996, the Council has invested in building relationships with the Pacific (via the annual Austronesian Forum) and the UN (via the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues).

Wan Li-Wang taiwanembassy.orgTaipei Representative Office in the EU and Belgium

Dr Li-Wang is the Representative at the Taipei Representative Of-fice in the EU and Belgium since 2010. Dr Li-Wang is the former Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs and holds a Master of Commerce from the National Chengchi University and a Master of Science from Georgetown University. Dr Li-Wang gained skills and expe-rience as a Visiting Researcher at the Thorkil Kristensen Institute of South Jutland University Centre in Denmark, before obtaining a PhD in Social Sciences from the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium. Dr Li-Wang was an Associate Professor at the University of Warsaw, Poland, lecturing on political and economic challenges for the Asian region and contemporary Chinese politics and so-ciety. Dr Li-Wang has also published several books on Taiwan-EU relations.

Ching-Hsin Yu tfd.org.twVice-president, Taiwan Foundationfor Democracy

Ching-Hsin Yu, PhD is the vice-president of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy. Dr Yu attained his masters in Political Sciences at The Pennsylvania State University in 1995. Afterwards Dr Yu beca-me Associate Research Fellow at the Election Study Center of the National Chengchi University until 2005. Dr Yu extended his career through various positions as Consultant in Mainland Affairs or Pu-blic Opinion Survey for the Taipei government. Since 2009, he is an Editorial member of the Chinese Public Administration Review and Chinese Political Science Review journals, and a Research Fel-low at the Election Study Center of the National Chengchi Univer-sity in Taiwan. Dr Yu’s main fields of research include the theories of Comparative Politics, methodology of Survey Research, theories of Party and Electoral Systems, electoral competition and voting behaviour and theories of regime change.

Tsai Chih Wei ndhu.edu.twAssistant Professor, Department of Indigenous Development and Social Work, National Dong Hwa University (Taiwan) Professor Tsai Chih Wei joined the National Dong Hwa University as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Indigenous Deve-lopment and Social Work in 2007. Prof. Wei holds a PhD in Law from the University of Washington and has published articles on Native American Studies, Maori traditional knowledge and Tribal Good Governance as well as climate and indigenous socio-cultural development. Prof. Wei is a Board Member of the Council of Indige-nous People, is on the Board of Directors of the Legal Aid Founda-tion and also serves on the Board of Supervisors of the Indigenous Peoples Cultural Foundation. Prof. Wei’s research focuses on indi-genous laws, International Human Rights Laws, International Law, and Indigenous Peoples Intellectual Property Rights.

Joëlle Hivonnet eeas.europa.euChina Division, European External Action Service (EEAS)

Formerly Head of “Human Rights, Humanitarian and Social Affairs”, Permanent Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations in Geneva, Dr Hivonnet currently works in the China Division of the EEAS. She is the author of a Ph.D thesis (Paris X) on “The Effects of the Ratification by the United Kingdom of the European Conven-tion on Human Rights”. She also holds an M.A in International Poli-tics from the Université Libre de Bruxelles. She became a European Official in 1992 and has worked in Brussels, New York and Geneva on issues such as Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the European antidiscrimination directives in 2000 and the Renewed European Social Agenda in 2005.

server during the 2012 elections. Michael Danielsen is also a board member of the Danish Taiwan association, and is chairman of the international committee in the capital region for the Danish Social Democratic Party and member of the Danish Network for Party of European Socialists (PES).

28

About The Organisers Of The Conference

Metin Kazak, MEP (ALDE)

Metin Kazak (Bulgarian: Метин Казак) is a Bulgarian politician and Member of the European Parliament. He is a member of Move-ment for Rights and Freedoms. He was first elected to the European Parliament in 2007, and was re-elected in 2009. Mr. Kazak, MEP, is Vice-chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and a member of the Committee on International Trade and the Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee. He is also a substitute member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee. Mr. Kazak holds a Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in International and Euro-pean law from the University of Bourgogne.

Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO)

The Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO) is an international, nonviolent, and democratic membership organisa-tion. Its members are indigenous peoples, minorities, and unrecognised or occupied territories who have joined together to protect and promote their human and cultural rights, to preserve their environments, and to find nonviolent solutions to conflicts which affect them.

Although the aspirations of UNPO Members differ greatly, they are all united by one shared condition: they are not adequately repre-sented at major international fora, such as the United Nations. As a consequence, their opportunity to participate on the international stage is significantly limited, as is their ability to access and draw upon the support of the global bodies mandated to defend their rights, protect their environments, and mitigate the effects of conflict.

In a world where over 90 per cent of conflicts are intra-state, the UNPO has been established to fill this gap by providing an international forum through which its Members can become effective participants and contributors to the international community. In an increa-singly interdependent world, it is ever more important that those who continue to be denied their rights or remain excluded be given an opportunity to present their cases. The UNPO therefore works to address the consequences of marginalisation, working with its Members to promote their democratic causes, to provide information, and to articulate creative and nonviolent strategies for progress. Above all, the UNPO works to ensure that the voices of its members are heard.

Founded in 1991 at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the UNPO is unique as an international organisation in that it is built entirely by its Members. Through this strong connection to those suffering the consequences of exclusion that the organisation seeks to address, the UNPO has since grown into a prominent and respected international organisation.

The UNPO’s membership has also grown steadily from its original fifteen founders, and now represents almost 50 Members worldwide. The work of the UNPO adapts continually to meet the challenges of its Members and the nature of the international political climate. Members remain committed to respecting the five principles enshrined in the UNPO Covenant: nonviolence, human rights, democracy and self-determination, environmental protection, and tolerance.

The UNPO remains committed to offering an increasing number of nations and peoples an entry point into the international commu-nity, enabling its Members to learn from one another, lending support where setbacks are encountered, and sharing successful expe-riences.

Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (TFD)

Initiated as a project of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2002, the TFD was formally established in June 2003 with a double mission: domestically, to serve a positive role in consolidating Taiwan’s democracy and strengthening the island’s commitment to human rights; and internationally, to act as a strong link between Taiwan and the world.

The TFD is governed by a total of fifteen trustees and five supervisors, representing political parties, the government, academia, non-go-vernmental organisations and the business sector. Despite receiving the bulk of its funding from the government, the TFD is an inde-pendent, non-partisan, and non-profit organisation. The TFD’s core activities include: building relationships with related institutions around the world; participating actively in the global promotion of democracy and supporting the improvement of human rights con-ditions; supporting the democracy promotion activities of NGOs and academic institutions; promoting research and publications on democratic developments in Taiwan and abroad; as well as holding seminars, workshops, conferences, and other educational activities in the area of democracy and human rights. Considered a milestone in Taiwan’s democratisation process, the TFD serves as a symbol of Taiwan’s determination to contribute to the flourishing of democracy in the Asia-Pacific region as well as to the aspirations of the global democratic community.

29

29 November 2012

Homepage Mr Metin Kazak, MEP: Indigenous Peoples in Taiwan Conference

10 December 2012

Freesun: EP Plays Host to UNPO Conference on Taiwan’s Indigenous People

Media Coverage

8 December 2012

The Taiwan Photographer Blog: Support to Indigenous Peoples in Taiwan

http://www.freesun.tw/

http://metinkazak.eu/index.php/en/arhive-news/303-2012-11-29-023518.html

http://thetaiwanphotographer.com/support-to-indigenous-peoples-in-taiwan/

30

Appendix 1Conference Poster

Appendix 2 Press Release 14 November 2012

Appendix 2 Press Release 27 November 2012

Appendix

31

Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO)

Laan van Meerdervoort 702517 AN The Hague

The NetherlandsTel.: +31(0)70 3646504Fax: +31(0)70 3646608

unpo@unpo.orgwww.unpo.org

UNPO