President-elect Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) recent comments about how Taiwan should go about this year’s WHO membership application are troubling.
Taiwan is a de facto independent state with unsettled legal status. Japan gave up Taiwan in the San Francisco Peace Treaty without designating a receiver. Therefore, Taiwan should use the geographic name “Taiwan” to apply for the WHO entry until a future referendum on the status of the island is conducted by the 23 million people in Taiwan.
“Taiwan” is the name used by most Taiwanese when telling others where they are from and is also the name used by Taiwanese manufacturers to label where their products are made. The name “Taiwan” is known by most people in the world. Applying to the WHO under this name eliminates any confusion.
A country can be admitted under one of the three categories listed under the guidelines of the WHO. Since Taiwan is not yet a member of the UN, it cannot be admitted under the first category which has the prerequisite of already being a UN member and accepting the WHO’s Constitution.
Further, since Taiwan conducts its own foreign affairs, it does not fall into the third category which is for associate members of existing states.
Nevertheless, Taiwan can apply for WHO membership under the second category and should continue to campaign consistently in this way.
Even though China will make Taiwan’s WHO membership application difficult, the important thing is to gather the momentum of support and sympathy for Taiwan. The understanding of how dangerous it is to exclude Taiwan from the global health network and a gradual shift of support and cooperation by the medical professionals are just as important as dealing with the politicians.
Hence, despite all odds against it, Taiwan should maintain private contacts with medical professionals, keeping citizens informed on health issues through medical blogs instead of waiting for epidemic alerts from the WHO.
The name “Chinese Taipei” was an unfortunate measure adopted through negotiations with the Olympic Committee (IOC) before Taiwan’s democratization and was merely intended to enable our athletes to participate in the Olympic Games. Taiwanese should not voluntarily jump into the trap ourselves with new membership applications.
While some people believe that since World War II, under the laws of war Taiwan is an unincorporated overseas territory of the US, Ma’s suggestion to use “Chinese Taipei” for Taiwan’s WHO membership application is arguable whereas Taiwan is the inarguable geographic name of the island. Any adjective combined with the name of a city is not an appropriate name representing Taiwan.
A flip-flop of names in the WHO membership application will hurt the Taiwanese, it will only leave the international community with an image that Taiwan is not consistent in its stance on its identity.
Ma’s intended approach will backfire and benefit only the Chinese authorities, especially using the adjective “Chinese,” with its implication of People’s Republic of China authority.
Doing the Chinese authorities a favor by diminishing Taiwan into a province of China is certainly not in the interest of the Taiwanese.
Policies that will put Taiwan at a further disadvantage against its unfriendly neighbor should be avoided. Seeking to improve the general welfare of Taiwanese should be Ma’s agenda.
ALISON HSIEH
Athens, Greece
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS