The 2005 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the WHO and the People's Republic of China was signed for the purpose of allowing official communications between the WHO and Taiwan. This MOU was, however, kept secret until only recently, when McKee and Atun published their study in The Lancet.
From a legal perspective, many believe that the WHO does have the right to enter into such an agreement with Chinese Government, as a necessary action to promote the WHO's founding objectives. To establish that the MOU does, in fact, support the WHO's founding objectives, it is necessary to reflect on the agency's Constitution and related conventions, including the International Health Regulations (IHR).
According to McKee, the MOU provides that all contacts between the WHO and the "Taiwanese authorities" need to be cleared with the Chinese delegation in Geneva, via an appointed liaison agency, no less than five weeks before actual contact takes place. Chinese authorities will decide which Taiwanese individuals will be contacted. Such an arrangement is inefficient and inconsistent with Article 2 of the IHR, which entitles the WHO to communicate directly with the health administration of the Member State, instead of going through diplomatic channels. Lots of things under the WHO's purview cannot be predicted five weeks in advance. The spread of communicable diseases, for example, may be impossible to foresee, and require immediate communication between Taiwan's health minister and the WHO.
The MOU stipulates that the Chinese shall choose who or what the WHO will speak to on the Taiwanese side. This is also inappropriate: Since the Chinese government doesn't even recognize the Taiwan government, it defies reason that it will appoint somebody or some agency from Taiwan's health administration to be the contact point. Even if the Chinese government wishes to do so, Taiwanese officials will feel extremely reluctant to comply with a Chinese dictate.
Articles 8 and 41 of the WHO Constitution offer the possibility for national organizations, governmental or non-governmental, to be represented at all relevant conferences of the Organization. The intention is to facilitate group as opposed to individual representation. It is up to the independent Taiwanese public health administration to implement whatever is adopted by the WHO, but the MOU only allows Taiwanese individuals to have contact with the WHO. As a democracy, Taiwan's legislative body will not endorse any negotiations between the WHO and a Taiwanese individual without prior authorization.
According to McKee, the MOU stipulates that Taiwanese citizens will not be invited to join expert advisory panels of the WHO. And the WHO is required to exclude any Taiwanese citizens inadvertently included within NGO delegations attending WHO meetings.
Direct contacts between the WHO and Taiwan are only possible when an emergency occurs, as designated by the WHO Director General, provided Chinese authorities agree with such contact. The exclusion of Taiwanese experts from WHO expert advisory panels cannot be based on technical or professional grounds, given the achievements of Taiwan's public health authority. Such exclusion prevents the WHO from incorporating useful expert input into its decision making.
Further, excluding Taiwanese citizens from NGO-WHO meetings is totally contrary to the rationale behind having NGO representation in the first place -- NGO representation is supposed to provide the WHO with a variety of different perspectives.
The MOU arrangement shows that China's public health administration does not tolerate different voices from civil society. The most recently revised IHR Articles 9 and 10 require a different and much open attitude from the WHO in terms of verification of NGO participation and government notification. Such an open attitude is an anathema to the spirit of the MOU.
China's power to veto emergency contact between the WHO and Taiwanese officials is contrary to Article 1 of the WHO Constitution. If this provision cannot be modified, then the Chinese government shall announce publicly that it will never exercise any veto power in such situations.
The MOU puts effective public health considerations aside and fails to serve the WHO's basic objectives. It does not remedy any loophole in the global surveillance system. It must be renegotiated with the full participation of the Taiwanese government.
Michael Gau is an associate professor of International Law at Soochow University.
Two weeks ago, Malaysian actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) raised hackles in Taiwan by posting to her 2.6 million Instagram followers that she was visiting “Taipei, China.” Yeoh’s post continues a long-standing trend of Chinese propaganda that spreads disinformation about Taiwan’s political status and geography, aimed at deceiving the world into supporting its illegitimate claims to Taiwan, which is not and has never been part of China. Taiwan must respond to this blatant act of cognitive warfare. Failure to respond merely cedes ground to China to continue its efforts to conquer Taiwan in the global consciousness to justify an invasion. Taiwan’s government
This month’s news that Taiwan ranks as Asia’s happiest place according to this year’s World Happiness Report deserves both celebration and reflection. Moving up from 31st to 27th globally and surpassing Singapore as Asia’s happiness leader is gratifying, but the true significance lies deeper than these statistics. As a society at the crossroads of Eastern tradition and Western influence, Taiwan embodies a distinctive approach to happiness worth examining more closely. The report highlights Taiwan’s exceptional habit of sharing meals — 10.1 shared meals out of 14 weekly opportunities, ranking eighth globally. This practice is not merely about food, but represents something more
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
RSS