Recent media reports on a WHO memo designating Taiwan as a province of China have angered many.
The WHO memo does not come out of nowhere. Not long ago, Su Chi (蘇起), former secretary-general of the National Security Council and currently a professor at Tamkang University, published a paper entitled “Myths Surrounding the Sovereignty Issue,” in defense of the policies of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration. In the article, he argues that under international law, the concept of sovereignty is neither absolute nor exclusive, and that the sovereignty issue is a myth.
By calling it a myth he is saying it doesn’t exist. Su starts by quoting former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Hsu Hsin-liang (許信良) as saying that Taiwan does not have a sovereignty problem. He lauds Hsu for saying that DPP accusations that the Ma administration is damaging Taiwan’s sovereignty are unfounded. It was disingenuous of him to have quoted Hsu.
Su cited the fact that Taiwan was represented in the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games under the name Zhonghua Taibei (中華台北) — in which the emphasis is on ethnicity — and not Zhongguo Taibei (中國台北), or Taipei, China. It was also the name used when former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) attended the APEC leaders’ summit in 2008 and then-Department of Health minister Yeh Ching-chuan (葉金川) attended the World Health Assembly (WHA) meeting in Geneva in 2009 in his official capacity as minister, Su said, adding that all three were major achievements for the Ma administration.
Sovereignty is a concept that has developed over centuries, the result of the application of the accumulated experience of the international community. Academics and politicians may well debate the matter, but that won’t change things. Su’s article, which represents the government view, reeks of the arrogance of academia. He is trying to pull the wool over the public’s eyes.
After centuries of interaction, the international community has developed a consensus and set of conventions regarding the concept of sovereignty and how it should be managed. Ambassadors and diplomats enjoy special rights and diplomatic immunity, as well as the right of passage along international rivers and waterways. In addition, there are bilateral agreements, such as status of forces agreements, that place certain limitations on national sovereignty.
These limitations are based on the principles of equality and reciprocity and do not impinge on a country’s autonomy. But take a look at how China and the WHO have colluded against Taiwan from the perspective of these international regulations. If Taiwan wants to participate in international health activities, it has to do so within the framework of China and negotiate each instance on a case-by-case basis with Beijing. Such participation is the ultimate insult to the dignity of Taiwanese — and yet the government claims it as a major achievement.
As far as I am concerned, both “Zhonghua Taipei” and “Zhongguo Taipei” mean “Chinese Taipei,” and for the life of me, I cannot see how the distinction means anything regarding Taiwan’s international status.
Some think Taiwan is in dire straits and that the effect of participation in international forums would lend it some form of “creeping officiality” on the world stage. Nevertheless, the government should not risk sinking further into the quicksand that is cross-straits relations by scoring political points in international affairs. If the government is not careful, China will back Taiwan into a corner from which it cannot escape.
Chen Rong-jye is a professor of law and a former secretary-general of the Straits Exchange Foundation.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
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
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
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS