The vote on Monday that blocked Taiwan's application for observer status at the WHO may have looked one-sided, but actually it was a very good result.
It began with about 50 Taiwanese demonstrating for their country before the Palais des Nations in Geneva, where the World Health Assembly (WHA) meets. Brought together by the Taiwan Presbyterian Church, the demonstrators held up banners and offered leaflets to cars entering the grounds.
Inside, at the agenda-setting General Committee, a number of countries called for the addition of Taiwan's application to the WHA agenda. A number spoke against adding the item. The debate seesawed back and forth for almost two hours.
In the end, as expected, the Pakistani chairman declared that since there was no consensus, he would not recommend adding Taiwan's application to the agenda.
This set the stage for a three-hour debate, which opened with the delegate from Gambia demanding that the question be re-examined so that Taiwan's voice could be heard at the WHO. Representatives from 17 democracies (including, for the first time, the US) spoke for Taiwan. On the other side, support for Beijing began with Cuba and concluded with Algeria.
In between, in addition to China itself, the list included such freedom-loving countries as North Korea, Yemen, Sudan, Zimbabwe and Belarus. It resembled a list of the world's worst violators of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
But the Chinese delegate must be complimented for exceptional nerve and daring. He actually claimed that because of the Chinese government's great love for the people of its "province," it would give them all the healthcare and health services they could possibly require -- meaning that they require no contact with the WHO. Of course, he continued, should Taiwanese authorities accept the sacred "one China" principle, they could even have direct access to the WHO itself. That there was a basic contradiction between the two statements eluded him.
When the votes were tallied, Taiwan had 25 supporters, a total that included (for the first time) the US and Japan. Israel and the Philippines abstained. The other side had 133 votes, a number which on first sight looks huge. But had efforts been successful to persuade the EU countries not to vote as a bloc against the amendment, the total would have looked quite different. If they had abstained, the total would have been more like 100 to 25. And since a simple majority of countries voting yea or nay is what is required, a swing of an additional 25 votes would have meant outright victory for Taiwan.
It is a tough battle. There are 192 members of the UN. Here at Geneva 140 actually turned up. Of that number, about 55 can be considered countries where the government governs with the consent of the people. The next task must be to enroll all 55 of them in democracy's cause.
Harvey Feldman is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS