On May 17, the World Health Assembly will convene in Geneva, and Taiwan will again fight to gain observer status. New Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark Chen (陳唐山) indicated optimistically that Taiwan's years of efforts to participate in the World Health Organization (WHO) may very well be repaid handsomely at this event.
The attitude of countries such as the US and Japan toward Taiwan's attempt to obtain observer status has become much more positive than in previous years.
The US may even submit the proposal for Taiwan's participation to the assembly, and does not rule out the possibility of asking for a vote on the issue. Department of Health Director-General Chen Chien-jen (陳建仁) also suggests that Taiwan has a better chance of becoming an observer this year.
The biggest obstacle to Taiwan's participation in the international community is China. China has consistently boycotted Taiwan's participation in international forums of all natures, from political, to economic, to sports, to cultural, to medical organizations. It absolutely does not permit Taiwan's people to have any footing in the international community.
Taiwan -- despite its millions of citizens, economic vitality and acclaimed democracy -- is actually excluded from international activities that are universally deemed as compatible with fundamental human rights valued by modern civilized society. This has kept Taiwan from engaging with the international community and fulfilling its responsibilities as a member of the global village.
Therefore, while the courage and determination of the government officials trying to lead Taiwan out of this diplomatic stalemate are admirable, obtaining this observer status and eventually taking part in the WHO are not goals that can be accomplished within a short period of time. Our citizens must be psychologically ready for a long effort.
For as our nation seeks WHO observer status, China has also intensified its obstructions. WHO Director General Lee Jong-wook recently indicated in Beijing that according to the relevant WHO regulations the organization is open to all countries, and therefore, in comparison with other international organizations, it is relatively easier to join the WHO.
However, a very key word is "country," meaning that WHO membership is available only to sovereign countries, Lee said. Therefore, he told top-ranking Chinese officials, Taiwan has no hope of obtaining WHO observer status.
Lee even fabricated the lie that WHO abides by the "one China" principle, and said the organization will handle issues involving Taiwan according to this principle.
However, this biased statement was immediately clarified by the WHO, where a spokesperson pointed out that the issue of Taiwan participating in the WHO has long existed, that the WHO does not have any "one China" policy, and that member countries have the power to decide everything.
Lee's pro-China statements are indeed sickening. Chen Chien-jen has already pointed out that at least five WHO observers are not sovereign countries, including the Red Cross and and PLO, and that two areas that are not nations are considered member states.
Obviously, Lee's statement that WHO members must be sovereign states was quite untrue, fabricated solely to pander to China. Taiwan is already a sovereign country, and WHO's continued exclusion of Taiwan from participating is not only groundless but will ultimately damage this humanitarian organization. It is known for promoting health care and protecting human lives with policies that transcend differences of race, religion, sex, culture and politics.
Clearly that reputation is being spoiled in this disgraceful instance, in which Lee spread lies about WHO's "one China" policy and otherwise sang and danced to delight the Chinese. President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) and Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) specifically discussed WHO's supposed "one China" policy with Lee, and China claimed that its "central government has always cared about Taiwanese people's health and welfare,pushed for cross-strait health and medical exchanges, and welcomed Taiwan to participate in the Chinese delegation" to the World Health Assembly.
Chinese Vice Health Minister Gao Qiang (高強) lied through his teeth in saying that "Taiwan's channel to information from the WHO is smooth and open, and that the Taiwan authorities' attempt to squeeze into the WHO through various excuses is made solely to justify its division of the mother country."
The truth of the matter is that the standard of medical care in Taiwan is definitely better than that in China. Taiwan has no need to be "taken care of" by China, which is incapable of caring for Taiwan. China repeated its "one China" myth to obstruct Taiwan's attainment of WHO observer status after China spread SARS to Taiwan, leaving this nation in dire need of the WHO's help. Some ranking Chinese officials even openly made heartless comments to the effect of "Who gives a damn about you guys?" -- ignoring the fact that Taiwan's people were fighting for their lives against the epidemic.
The big talk by other Chinese leaders about how they care about the health of Taiwanese and how they welcome Taiwan to join China's WHO delegation reveals only the phony and heartless side of Beijing.
Chen, Taiwan's top health official, cited four major arguments for Taiwan's WHO observer status this year, including that Taiwan's health care should not suffer as a result of Chinese obstruction. Taiwan is willing to share its public health progress and furnish medical assistance, particularly to help other countries match its successes in implementing WHO disease-prevention strategies against AIDS, malaria and tobacco-related hazards to human health.
Taiwan's efforts to obtain WHO observer status are motivated neither by selfish political agendas nor fabricated from political expediency. Rather, these efforts seek to protect health care rights and to share public health accomplishments for the greater good of humanity.
Chinese obstruction of these altruistic goals are not only futile but will also deepen the divisions between Taiwan and China, forcing the two sides further apart.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS