The “one China” principle has prevented Taiwan from joining the WHO. This is wrong. In the wake of the out-of-control Wuhan coronavirus, Taiwan should be permitted to join the WHO under the name of “Taiwan” and it should exist as a separate country within the WHO.
At a time when Beijing has partially locked down more than 80 cities in nearly 20 provinces, and at a time when the official death toll exceeds more than 1,380 people with more than 63,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 as of Friday, Taiwan — home to nearly 24 million people — is being blocked from membership from UN agencies like the WHO and the International Civil Aviation Organization.
“Last week, when WHO started to publish a world map of the epidemic using color coding to indicate the same level of seriousness, Taiwan was given same level as China. That has a direct impact on Taiwanese people and airlines that are traveling there,” said Chi Chun-huei (紀駿輝), a Taiwanese-American professor at Oregon State University who specializes in global health.
On Thursday last week, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused China, which includes Taiwan on its daily update as “Taiwan Province,” of feeding incorrect data to the WHO, and complained about how the WHO referred to the nation. The WHO calls the self-governed territory “Taipei and environs.”
Previously, it has used “Taiwan, China,” “Taipei municipality” and “Taipei.” However, these are not the correct names for it. Its rightful name is Taiwan, and its formal name is the Republic of China.
Clearly the WHO is succumbing to political pressure from Beijing. Beijing sees itself as the ruler of democratic Taiwan, and has used its clout to diminish the nation’s presence on the world stage since Beijing-skeptic President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) took power in May 2016.
The WHO should be a nonpolitical organization pursuing the highest health standards for humanity and should not solely serve Beijing’s interests. This represents a failure of leadership at the highest levels of the WHO.
With the number of illnesses from the Wuhan coronavirus doubling every six-and-a-half days, health is a basic human right, as well as a universal value, regardless of differences in race, religion, political beliefs, economic or social situations.
Taiwan is constantly left out of the loop with respect to important global conversations that involve people’s safety. It is not just the people of Taiwan’s safety, but the safety of those across borders. While Taiwanese health officials receive information on unfolding health crises such as COVID-19 from counterparts in China or elsewhere, no formal mechanism exists to ensure that it is received in a timely manner.
Taiwan should be allowed equal participation in all WHO events.
Taiwan has the best healthcare system in the world, business magazine CEOWorld concluded in its 2019 Health Care Index. The list considered the overall quality of healthcare, including the infrastructure, staff competency, cost, availability and government readiness, the magazine said.
Taiwan has a history of managing previous outbreaks in the region well, from SARS to African swine fever. It should not simply be a passive recipient of thirdhand information; it should have a seat at the table in WHO planning and preparatory meetings.
Instead of shunning Taiwan, the WHO should cooperate with medical institutions throughout the nation to help procure a low-cost vaccine for COVID-19 that the WHO could distribute at cost to the countries south of the Sahara, the Middle East and North Africa.
The coronavirus outbreak is deeply worrying, but also a timely reminder that Taiwan needs to be readmitted to the WHO and other international bodies.
It is also in the national interests of Australia, Japan, South Korea and the US to encourage greater interaction in areas like health with Taiwan.
Taiwan has a long history of being bullied by China, a situation that many other countries are slowly waking up to. Only international support can resist Beijing’s efforts to erase Taiwan. Democratic countries should stand together to prove that democracy is not just a different but a better form of government than authoritarianism.
Arthur Tane is executive director of the Council on Middle East Relations, director of the Middle East-East Asia Office and the MEES series editor.
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)