Risk of breaching non-refoulement

The government’s swift deportation on Tuesday of former China Central Television (CCTV) host Cheng Wanjun (程萬軍) — who had sought protection from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees office in Thailand, citing a high risk of persecution — was widely supported by Taiwanese online.

Common arguments included the absence of a domestic refugee law in Taiwan, suspicions that Cheng could be a Chinese spy, the lack of independent evidence supporting his claims of political persecution, his ability to travel freely in and out of China prior to the incident and concerns that accommodating him could set a precedent for similar cases involving people seeking asylum in airport transit zones.

On the surface, the arguments might seem pragmatic, but did sending Cheng back to Thailand in less than 48 hours truly serve Taiwan’s long-term interests?

Before his deportation at Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport, Cheng appealed to Taipei for humanitarian consideration, asking for one or two months to relocate to a third country.

Under supervision, a one-to-two-month stay would pose negligible security risk while allowing Cheng time to seek relocation to a third country. Furthermore, the alleged lack of independent evidence of political persecution is an evidentiary gap Taipei could have helped close.

Cheng said that the UN office in Thailand has classified him as a high-risk case, which is a claim that can be checked. Public reporting does not indicate that Taipei asked the office for confirmation.

Nor does Cheng’s freedom to travel prove he is safe. Freedom of movement is an administrative and practical matter, not a guarantee of political safety. For Chinese dissidents, the ability to cross borders freely does not necessarily indicate a low risk of political persecution or transnational repression.

While unauthorized asylum attempts in airport transit zones might add administrative burdens on Taiwan, the inconveniences pale in comparison with the consequences of violating the principle of non-refoulement — the customary international law prohibiting the return of an asylum seeker to a place where they face persecution or torture.

Thailand has a troubling record of returning Chinese dissidents to China. By sending Cheng to Thailand, Taipei exposed him to the foreseeable danger of onward transfer to China. Known as indirect, or chain, refoulement, that breaches the principle of non-refoulement and implicates Taiwan in his plight, whatever Thailand does next.

A domestic refugee law is not a technical prerequisite for a country to be classified as a democracy. However, when a democratic nation disregards non-refoulement, it is inevitably flagged by watchdogs as a sign of democratic erosion.

If Thailand hands Cheng over to China, Taiwan’s decision to deport him could seriously undermine its international standing and expose it to diplomatic criticism.

The White House, the Pentagon and the US Congress have repeatedly cited Taiwan as a “vibrant democracy” as a core justification for the US’ security commitments. By letting its democratic standards wane through avoidable violations of non-refoulement, Taiwan weakens the normative foundation of international support that is vital to its security.

Regan Chong Sik Yu is a Hong Konger advocating for Hong Kong’s independence from China and a contact for the Hong Konger Front.