The vote on Monday that blocked Taiwan's application for observer status at the WHO may have looked one-sided, but actually it was a very good result.
It began with about 50 Taiwanese demonstrating for their country before the Palais des Nations in Geneva, where the World Health Assembly (WHA) meets. Brought together by the Taiwan Presbyterian Church, the demonstrators held up banners and offered leaflets to cars entering the grounds.
Inside, at the agenda-setting General Committee, a number of countries called for the addition of Taiwan's application to the WHA agenda. A number spoke against adding the item. The debate seesawed back and forth for almost two hours.
In the end, as expected, the Pakistani chairman declared that since there was no consensus, he would not recommend adding Taiwan's application to the agenda.
This set the stage for a three-hour debate, which opened with the delegate from Gambia demanding that the question be re-examined so that Taiwan's voice could be heard at the WHO. Representatives from 17 democracies (including, for the first time, the US) spoke for Taiwan. On the other side, support for Beijing began with Cuba and concluded with Algeria.
In between, in addition to China itself, the list included such freedom-loving countries as North Korea, Yemen, Sudan, Zimbabwe and Belarus. It resembled a list of the world's worst violators of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
But the Chinese delegate must be complimented for exceptional nerve and daring. He actually claimed that because of the Chinese government's great love for the people of its "province," it would give them all the healthcare and health services they could possibly require -- meaning that they require no contact with the WHO. Of course, he continued, should Taiwanese authorities accept the sacred "one China" principle, they could even have direct access to the WHO itself. That there was a basic contradiction between the two statements eluded him.
When the votes were tallied, Taiwan had 25 supporters, a total that included (for the first time) the US and Japan. Israel and the Philippines abstained. The other side had 133 votes, a number which on first sight looks huge. But had efforts been successful to persuade the EU countries not to vote as a bloc against the amendment, the total would have looked quite different. If they had abstained, the total would have been more like 100 to 25. And since a simple majority of countries voting yea or nay is what is required, a swing of an additional 25 votes would have meant outright victory for Taiwan.
It is a tough battle. There are 192 members of the UN. Here at Geneva 140 actually turned up. Of that number, about 55 can be considered countries where the government governs with the consent of the people. The next task must be to enroll all 55 of them in democracy's cause.
Harvey Feldman is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS