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.
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