While schoolchildren in the US and most of the world are learning their lessons remotely, schools in Taiwan are operating normally. On April 11, the nation’s baseball season opened on schedule, although fans — including President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) — have been watching the games on television and online, and listening on the radio rather than sitting in the stands.
However, the rest of Taiwanese society and commercial activity are humming along relatively normally, despite — or rather, because of — scrupulous compliance with social distancing; the wearing of masks inside and outdoors; special attention to hygiene through frequent surface cleaning and handwashing; and temperature checks and hand sanitization before entering office buildings and shops.
Taiwan’s can-do spirit has enabled it to stay healthy and safe without having to close down its economy. The population of 24 million has reported, as of yesterday, just 426 infections and six deaths from COVID-19.
The prudent, disciplined management of the crisis was made possible because the virus was largely kept out of country in the first place. Despite disinformation from China, and the apparent complicit misinformation from the WHO, the government began screening passengers from Wuhan, where the virus originated, as soon as human-to-human transmission was detected there on Dec. 31.
Taiwan ignored the representations from Beijing and the WHO that there was nothing to worry about, because it had seen this movie before, many times. Whenever an epidemic or pandemic either originated in China or was exacerbated by its mishandling of it — SARS, the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), H1N1, avian flu, HIV/AIDS — China has used the same playbook.
Chinese authorities would first deny or minimize the outbreak, then say it was under control, withhold critically needed information from the international community, or fabricate it and mislead the world. In each case, Beijing’s dishonesty confused and immobilized other countries from taking timely action as the diseases spread, sometimes “only” as an epidemic, at other times exploding into a full-blown pandemic.
This time, Taiwan was prepared. Based on its prior experiences, it had stockpiled the necessary protective gear and resources for medical and front-line personnel.
As the virus spread globally, it was even able to donate 10 million masks to the hardest hit countries, including 2 million to the US.
When Taiwan incrementally sealed off its borders from the affected areas of China, it considered not only the need to protect its own population. Acting in the same spirit of international civic responsibility it consistently shows as a democratic society, Taipei’s health officials immediately notified the WHO of the disturbing reports from Wuhan.
Tragically for the world, the WHO’s leadership ignored Taiwan’s warning and continued to echo Beijing’s line.
The WHO’s pathetic performance in enabling China’s massive deception contributed decisively to the eruption of the pandemic and stands in stark contrast to the competence and public-mindedness of Taiwan.
Yet, in the bitterest of ironies, Taiwan, the model international citizen, is excluded from participation in the WHO because of China’s absurd objections. That the WHO’s leadership would carry what US President Donald Trump has called its “China-centric” bias to the extreme of rejecting critical reality confirms its moral and professional bankruptcy.
When Minister of Foreign Affairs Joseph Wu (吳釗燮) spoke to the Hudson Institute last week, he outlined the methods that established the successful “Taiwan model” for dealing with the pandemic. However, he also noted how Chinese authorities are exploiting the very global crisis they created.
“From conspiracy theories about the origins of the coronavirus to fabricated government proclamations, China has clearly shown that they do not want this crisis to go to waste. I think the United States these days is also having a small dose of what we have been encounter[ing] in Taiwan for some time,” Wu said.
Trump has shown that he recognizes what Beijing and its WHO ally did, and plans to take decisive action. He has said he will start by using the leverage inherent in Washington’s disproportionate financial contribution to the WHO.
He has a range of available options, from cutting off funding, withdrawing and creating an alternative organization, or demanding that Taiwan be admitted as a full participating member, despite China’s likely threat that it would not remain in the WHO if Taiwan is there.
Another opportunity for reform of the WHO will be available next month when the World Health Assembly, its governing body, could appoint a new head.
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus of Ethiopia appears to have overtly colluded with China before and during the pandemic, has consistently supported Taiwan’s exclusion, and added insult to injury by accusing Taiwan of racism when it disclosed its December warning of an impending crisis. He needs to be replaced by a competent public health specialist who is experienced in pandemics and immune from China’s politicization.
The perfect candidate could come from among Taiwan’s many experts, including its team of Centers for Disease Control officials who detected and reported to the WHO the ominous signs from Wuhan. It would be fitting to replace someone who did almost everything wrong during the pandemic with a person who did everything right.
Joseph Bosco served as China country director in the office of the US secretary of defense. He is a fellow at the Institute for Taiwan-American Studies and a member of the advisory committee of the Global Taiwan Institute.
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)