According to media reports, WHO spokesman Christian Lindmeier said: “If there is no ‘cross-strait understanding’ this year, it is not expected that an invitation to the WHA [World Health Assembly] will be issued” to Taiwan.
Lindmeier not only seriously overstepped the authority of the secretariat of an international organization, but his statement in many ways cannot be justified.
According to the WHO’s constitution, rules of procedure and related practices, the attendance as an observer of a political entity is up to the WHA or the director-general to decide.
When Taiwan attended the WHA as an observer for the first time in 2009, friendly members such as the US, Japan and the EU, as well as China, did not claim that Taiwan should only attend on the basis of a “political understanding.”
If a “political understanding” were truly needed to attend the WHA, given that other WHO member states have each year contributed more financially than China, is their support of Taiwan’s participation not equally as important as Beijing’s “political understanding”?
Or does it mean that the WHO has depreciated into a “China Health Organization”? Otherwise, how would it be possible for friendly nations such as the US and Japan to turn a deaf ear to this situation?
As the Asia-Pacific region faces the threat of infectious diseases such as African swine fever, each nation urgently needs to establish a seamless epidemic prevention network.
On top of that, Taiwan’s National Health Insurance system could serve as an example for other nations.
The WHO has gone the extra mile to look for any excuse to exclude Taiwan.
Despite its exclusion, Taiwanese have still managed to establish an outstanding healthcare system and epidemic response mechanism. Overseas medical assistance of all forms has further proven that the nation is a responsible and indispensable contributor to global health.
These efforts cannot just be glossed over with a statement about the absence of a “cross-strait understanding.”
If a “cross-strait understanding” were to be discussed, it should include how severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, was imported from China to Taiwan without acquiring Taipei’s understanding. Now, African swine fever is spreading in China and many nearby countries are paying a huge price for their epidemic prevention work.
Hence, Taiwanese have a strong aversion to the WHO spokesman’s statement.
Regrettably, some members of the opposition have criticized President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for harming the health of Taiwanese by insisting on maintaining her political ideology.
As China is now boycotting Taiwan over the Democratic Progressive Party’s rejection of the so-called “1992 consensus,” under China’s hegemonic thinking, to be invited to attend the WHA, should Taiwan not insist on its political ideology rather than accepting Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) “one country, two systems” formula?
The situation has also highlighted the malpractices of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, which relied on China’s “good intentions” for Taiwan’s international participation. Once China grows discontent with Taiwan, China can always shirk its responsibility to it, as happened with the WHO and the International Civil Aviation Organization.
As a result, the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) reliance on China’s goodwill and its collaboration with the Chinese Communist Party cannot be seen as a sustainable “strategy.”
Although Taiwan’s participation in intergovernmental organizations was difficult during the administrations of former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), Taiwan was gradually able to negotiate the right of membership and the use of its name through countless rounds of international negotiations, and has been able to participate despite changes in the ruling party.
It is obvious which diplomatic approach is better for Taiwan’s international participation. The premise of a “cross-strait understanding” would certainly be a dead end regarding Taiwan’s WHO participation.
Lin Shih-chia is executive director of the Foundation of Medical Professionals Alliance in Taiwan and a former legislator.
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