Japanese media on Sunday last week reported on speculation that the US and Taiwan might discuss establishing a new international health organization, which the Taiwanese government has denied. If true, the rumors would indicate that the US — which initiated an exit from the WHO on July 7 — was looking to replace the functions of the WHO and seeking partners to join the new group.
If such talks are not taking place, they should be. The WHO was formed in 1948 after discussions with delegations from the Republic of China (ROC), Norway and Brazil with the goal of “the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health.” When the ROC on Oct. 25, 1971, was expelled from the UN, the People’s Republic of China also took its place in the WHO.
Unlike Taiwan, which participated in the WHO to improve health conditions in countries left devastated in the wake of World War II, China has historically used international organizations like the WHO to expand its influence — which is “simply what authoritarian regimes do,” as Bloomberg wrote on April 9.
The Bloomberg article argued that China should remain in the WHO, since “most new infectious diseases begin somewhere in China,” and the world needs access to information about those illnesses and needs to help China combat them to curb their spread.
The piece highlighted the dangerous aspects in China’s response to outbreaks. It took two months after the 2003 SARS outbreak for the WHO to allow doctors into China, and in June it was reported that China had withheld information about COVID-19 in the early stages of the outbreak, allowing its spread to disastrous proportions. There have also been speculations around the deaths of whistle-blowers in China who attempted to report on the threat of COVID-19, suggesting they were silenced by the government.
This too is simply what authoritarian regimes do.
Taiwan is a global health leader, as demonstrated by its effective handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, and affirmed by US Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar’s visit to Taipei earlier this week, during which he praised the nation’s health achievements and its aid to other countries.
Taiwan benefited greatly from the WHO during its two decades as a member, when the US and the UN set up milk stations for undernourished children in Taiwan and helped it fight devastating illnesses such as blackfoot disease and malaria. Taiwan has since turned the tables on infectious diseases, and today provides humanitarian aid to disadvantaged countries through the International Cooperation and Development Fund.
Whereas the US Seventh Fleet had previously trained Taiwanese doctors through its prestigious Naval Medical Research Unit Two, which was once based on the National Taiwan University campus, Taiwan now sends its medical professionals abroad to train doctors.
The benefits of cooperating with Taiwan on medical research and preventive medicine cannot be overstated. Yet, Chinese influence over the WHO continues to prevent Taiwan’s meaningful participation in the organization.
The US does not need to leave the WHO — a decision that can be reversed before July 6 next year — but establishing an organization in which Taiwan can participate, and in which no individual nation can obstruct other members’ participation, would benefit world health. The US could make clear to Beijing that a new organization is not intended as a vindictive move — and China could join if it wished — but it must also make clear that the organization would give precedence to health over politics.
The WHO is a political monstrosity with directors-general, decisionmaking committees, a huge headquarters and a massive annual travel budget. What the world really needs from a global health organization is meetings of like-minded, health-focused medical professionals who can meet regularly to share ideas and solve problems — not create them.
A return to power for former US president Donald Trump would pose grave risks to Taiwan’s security, autonomy and the broader stability of the Indo-Pacific region. The stakes have never been higher as China aggressively escalates its pressure on Taiwan, deploying economic, military and psychological tactics aimed at subjugating the nation under Beijing’s control. The US has long acted as Taiwan’s foremost security partner, a bulwark against Chinese expansionism in the region. However, a second Trump presidency could upend decades of US commitments, introducing unpredictability that could embolden Beijing and severely compromise Taiwan’s position. While president, Trump’s foreign policy reflected a transactional
There appears to be a growing view among leaders and leading thinkers in Taiwan that their words and actions have no influence over how China approaches cross-Strait relations. According to this logic, China’s actions toward Taiwan are guided by China’s unwavering ambition to assert control over Taiwan. Many also believe Beijing’s approach is influenced by China’s domestic politics. As the thinking goes, former President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) made a good faith effort to demonstrate her moderation on cross-Strait issues throughout her tenure. During her 2016 inaugural address, Tsai sent several constructive signals, including by acknowledging the historical fact of interactions and
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has prioritized modernizing the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to rival the US military, with many experts believing he would not act on Taiwan until the PLA is fully prepared to confront US forces. At the Chinese Communist Party’s 20th Party Congress in 2022, Xi emphasized accelerating this modernization, setting 2027 — the PLA’s centennial — as the new target, replacing the previous 2035 goal. US intelligence agencies said that Xi has directed the PLA to be ready for a potential invasion of Taiwan by 2027, although no decision on launching an attack had been made. Whether
HSBC Holdings successfully fought off a breakup campaign by disgruntled Asian investors in recent years. Now, it has announced a restructuring along almost the same east-west lines. The obvious question is why? It says it is designed to create a simpler, more efficient and dynamic company. However, it looks a lot like the bank is also facing up to the political reality of the growing schism between the US and China. A new structure would not dissolve HSBC’s geopolitical challenges, but it could give the bank better options to respond quickly if things worsen. HSBC spent 2022 battling to convince shareholders of
RSS