One short faxed letter from WHO Director-General Margaret Chan (陳馮富珍) inviting “Chinese Taipei” to participate in this month’s World Health Assembly (WHA) brought an end to 13 years of disappointment on Tuesday when Taiwan finally achieved its goal of representation at the WHO.
The government predictably patted itself on the back, attributing the watershed to its “modus vivendi” policy of not provoking China, and sought to demonstrate that it had not compromised Taiwan’s sovereignty to gain this achievement.
But at what cost was this “breakthrough” achieved?
The very fact that Taiwan had to be invited and was not admitted in the usual manner is the first cause for concern. The invitation came after secret negotiations last month between representatives from Taipei and Beijing. And while many in Taiwan will be pleased with the result, it is imperative that the government stick to its March 13 promise that it will release information at an appropriate time about how this was achieved.
Unlike China, Taiwan is a democracy, in which transparency is essential for accountability. The public needs to know if the government is — as it says — acting in their best interests and that this was not the result of more secretive meetings between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party.
People should not be content with reassurances that this is just the latest example of Beijing’s “goodwill” if such goodwill is conditional on the Taiwanese government considering itself part of China.
While “Chinese Taipei” may be an acceptable name to the government, to the rest of the world it implies that Taiwan is under Beijing’s heel.
The so-called increase in Taiwan’s international breathing space is nothing of the sort.
By becoming a non-state observer — China will not allow any other form of membership — and not a full member of the WHO, Taiwan puts itself in the same company as the Palestinian territories and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.
It is far short of the stated goal of most Taiwanese: admission to the WHO as a member state. Is this how most of them view their country, and what they envisioned when they said they wanted meaningful participation?
Another problem is that the invitation only applies to this year. Fears that the invitation will need renewing on an annual basis seem to have been confirmed. This is a worrying development as it means Beijing will now have the ability to hold Taiwanese and their health concerns to a form of ransom. How long will it be before we start seeing election slogans such as “Vote KMT, stay in the WHA?”
While many people may be happy about what they see as the fruits of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) cross-strait labor, they may not be so ecstatic when they realize this government has pushed them another step toward unification.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has prioritized modernizing the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to rival the US military, with many experts believing he would not act on Taiwan until the PLA is fully prepared to confront US forces. At the Chinese Communist Party’s 20th Party Congress in 2022, Xi emphasized accelerating this modernization, setting 2027 — the PLA’s centennial — as the new target, replacing the previous 2035 goal. US intelligence agencies said that Xi has directed the PLA to be ready for a potential invasion of Taiwan by 2027, although no decision on launching an attack had been made. Whether
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS