When the World Health Assembly (WHA) sent an invitation to Taiwan to join this year’s meeting in Geneva, it stipulated one condition: that attendance be in line with the “one China” principle. This, for a mere five days of meetings.
In April 2005, then-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰), without the approval of then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), went to China to meet then-general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) to formulate the Lien-Hu communique and discuss issues such as Taiwan’s participation in the WHA. The upshot of these talks was that Taiwan would be able to participate as long as it adhered to the so-called “1992 consensus” and the “one China” principle, and participated under the name “Taiwan, province of China.”
One month later China signed a memorandum of understating (MOU) with the WHO.
In May 2008, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) took office, and the Lien-Hu communique was immediately implemented. In May 2009, Taiwan implicitly acknowledged and accepted the MOU, in order to attend the five-day WHA meeting under the name “Taiwan, province of China.” Thus, the sovereignty and rights of the entire nation — in a process decided upon in private negotiations between the KMT and the CCP, and not approved by the general public — were further swallowed up by Beijing.
The Lien-Hu communique gave us what Ma now calls the “WHA model”; it is the outcome of a major loss of sovereignty brought about by negotiations carried out behind closed doors. This is what Ma terms flexible diplomacy — a process from Lien to Ma that has seen Taiwanese resorting to bowing their heads and kowtowing, actions that give little or no thought to the nation’s dignity, and for what? Five days’ participation in an international conference. Are we really to bear the repercussions of the actions of these two individuals?
How many UN member states can compete with Taiwan in the fields of medical research, science and technology, medical education and healthcare? The WHO is trying to accommodate China in all things, but when it comes to medical standards, doctors produced by China’s education system are not always seen as being of the highest caliber: In fact, many are seen as quacks. China likes to think of itself as a major power, but to hold the health rights of Taiwanese hostage to politics in this way would be seen by people from civilized nations as shameful.
Let us look at this from another perspective. The WHO learned much from Taiwan’s experience of dealing with the SARS crisis in 2003. The Centers for Disease Control in the US and Taiwan have worked together on sharing medical information for many years. There has also been substantial cooperation on environmental health between the US, the EU, Taiwan and Japan for a long time. All of this makes one wonder whether Taiwan needs the WHO, or whether it is the WHO that needs Taiwan.
What Taiwanese need is respectful participation. Taiwan’s healthcare achievements can make a considerable contribution to the UN, to the world and to humankind. For many years now it has sent countless outstanding healthcare professionals to third world nations, including Africa, to help out poor nations and to make the world a better place.
What the WHO needs is Taiwan; what it does not need is to do Beijing’s bidding and exert pressure on Taiwan. If we will not be treated with respect when we go, why go at all?
Winston Dang is a former head of the Environmental Protection Administration and chair professor at the Taipei Medical University.
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS