President Chen Shui-bian (
Some pundits have argued that Chan's position would put Taiwan into a more difficult situation. The Foundation of Medical Professionals Alliance in Taiwan, which has dedicated itself for a long time to to promoting "Taiwan for the WHO," would like to shed some light on the situation.
It is important first to distinguish between observer status and full membership. There is no such a thing as observer status in the WHO Constitution. Reference to this status, however, is made in the body's Rules of Procedure. The concept of observer status has therefore emerged through practice.
Observers can only take part in the one-week World Health Assembly (WHA) held annually in May, where WHO members meet to discuss and share information on epidemics. Only mini-states, such as the Holy See, and non-governmental organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, have observer status at the WHA.
Observer status is deliberated upon and ultimately granted by the WHA.
But should the WHO abide by the "one China" principle? In April 2004, the WHO's former director-general, Lee Jong-wook of South Korea, made a comment similar comment to Chang's, but WHO spokesman Iain Simpson said that Lee's remark had been misquoted and there was no such a thing as a "one China" principle at the WHO.
Applications for membership, he said, should therefore be determined by member states, while the WHO secretariat had no authority on this issue.
Since there is no provision in the WHO Constitution and the WHA Rules of Procedure specifying the director-general's right to decide whether certain entities are states or not, and given the political sensitivity of the issue, WHO chiefs have turned to various avoidance techniques.
East Germany's application in 1968 provides an illuminating example. At the time, West Germany was already a WHO member and complied with the "one Germany" policy, known as the Hallstein Doctrine. The WHO director-general at the time took two separate actions after receiving the East's application: He first circulated the application and placed it on the WHA agenda, making a formal reference to the Rules of Procedure. To avoid having to make a decision on his own, he then sent a letter to WHO members in which he argued that East Germany's application would need to be debated at the WHA.
In 1972, the director-general used Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure, which states that "the director-general may invite states having made application for membership to send observers to sessions of the health assembly."
That year, East Germany sent observers to attend the WHA meeting and became a WHO member the next year.
Given this precedent, Chang's statements undoubtedly went beyond a director-general's remit. As such, we call on the director-general to abide by the established procedures rather than make her own political preferences policy.
Twice in the past -- in 1997 and 2004 -- Taiwan applied for observer status at the WHA, but the content of the application was in fact "whether to place Taiwan's application for WHA observership on the agenda of the assembly." This was therefore merely a matter of procedure rather than a vote on a substantive issue.
This year, however, Chen used Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure to apply for membership, which should have resulted in an invitation by the WHO director-general to participate as an observer. This strategy was meant to prevent procedure from being used to block Taiwan's application and dovetailed with US and Japanese support for Taiwan to obtain observer status at the WHA.
Since its very beginning, the WHO has stressed the universality of membership. Applicants can become full members with the approval of half of member states, without any possibility of a veto.
During the early 1950s, West Germany and Japan were still under occupation, meaning that their external relations were being handled by the occupying powers. Nevertheless, they both became members of the WHO.
For the WHO to spend large amounts of resources and budgets trying to build a seamless global epidemic prevention network while excluding Taiwan is as unconscionable as it is illogical.
Lin Shih-chia
Executive director, Foundation of Medical Professionals Alliance in Taiwan
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS