Taiwan’s bid for observer status in the WHO is often viewed as a key index of cross-strait relations, with President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration constantly expressing optimism that it will succeed. However, the bid is full of worrying sugar-coated content.
Take the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR), for example. Bernard Kean, executive director of the WHO’s Office of the Director-General, sent a letter to Taiwan’s top health official in January that proposed the inclusion of Taiwan in the implementation of the IHR.
As Taiwan’s Centers for Disease Control stated in an English-language press release, concrete measures proposed by the WHO include accepting Taiwan’s point of contact; allowing direct communication and contact between the contact points of the WHO secretariat and Taiwan; providing Taiwan with a password to a secured event information site; dispatching experts to Taiwan and inviting Taiwan’s representatives to attend WHO emergency committees in the event of a public health emergency in Taiwan of international concern; and inviting Taiwan to nominate a health expert for the IHR roster.
Meanwhile, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office has stated that Beijing highly values implementation of the IHR. Based on this, the Chinese government has negotiated with the WHO secretariat over an IHR application for the “Taiwan area.” In other words, arrangements involving Taiwan have to be approved by Beijing, and this approval can be withdrawn at anytime.
Information relating to Taiwan is filed as “Taiwan, China” at the WHO, and Taiwan’s eight major ports are considered Chinese ports. Taipei should have actively protested against this, but it surprisingly accepted the terms. In the face of public concern, Taiwan’s authorities are stressing that these developments represent Chinese goodwill and are diplomatic achievements.
For the Ma government, participation in the WHO is a priority. It therefore tends to report good news, stay silent on negative developments and refuse to look deeper into problems to avoid damaging cross-strait relations.
Allowing Taiwan to participate in the World Health Assembly (WHA) would fulfill Chinese President Hu Jintao’s (胡錦濤) undertaking on Taiwan’s participation in WHO events, which would benefit China’s international propaganda campaign. More importantly, the move would undercut accusations that China restricts Taiwan’s international space.
But since Beijing can block Taipei’s participation at any time, it would hold even more power over Taipei.
For Taiwan, the only advantage in all this would be the chance of attending the five-day WHA meeting. However, the transmission of data on global health issues and disease prevention takes more than just five days; we must ask ourselves if it is worthwhile to end Taiwan’s efforts over the years and display this kind of goodwill to China in exchange for a mere five-day meeting. Since Beijing holds all the cards, we must also ask what would happen in succeeding years. Would Taiwan be excluded if it does not obey Beijing?
Observer status is better than isolation. But if obtaining this status depends on China’s assessment of how Taiwan is “behaving,” then members of the international community may come to believe that Taiwan’s international space should be determined by China.
The dangers are clear. The government must not look to ideology when trying to make diplomatic breakthroughs. It must not enter China’s framework and ignore the threat to Taiwan’s sovereignty that this will precipitate.
Chiang Huang-chih is an associate professor in the Department of Law at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS