Like many other concepts and phrases employed in the field of international relations, national security is a term that means different things to different people. During the Cold War, it was roughly equivalent to the term "defense," and signified the protection of a nation's territory or people against a military attack. Today, however, it has a much more extensive meaning and implies the protection of a country's political interests, economic interests, environment and public health.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the global community may soon confront a health crisis of biblical proportions. Avian influenza, or bird flu, has become endemic in Asia. It appears to be only a matter of time before it makes the leap to humans, and thus, human-to-human transmission. Should the WHO's predictions prove to be correct and human-to-human transmission becomes commonplace, the consequences could be catastrophic.
On Nov. 25, Klaus Stohr, a WHO influenza expert, told reporters in Bangkok that the next flu pandemic is inevitable and that it will cause the deaths of between 2 million and 7 million people. Several days later, Shigeru Omi, regional director of the WHO's Western Pacific office, suggested that this estimate was conservative. He claimed that "we are talking at least 7 million deaths, but maybe more -- 10 million, 20 million and the worst case 100 million."
Omi added, "if it happens, it will be incomparable with the SARS situation."
On Dec. 20, however, the estimated death toll was revised downward to 7 million deaths.
Whether the anticipated pandemic results in 7 million or 100 million deaths is immaterial at this juncture. Rather, the critical task that confronts the WHO is to figure out how to head off this threat to global health. To its credit, the WHO is calling for greater international cooperation, the stockpiling of anti-viral drugs, vaccine development and other public health measures. The global institution has also appealed to "some countries" to prevent delays in disclosing information about outbreaks of the flu (Chinese officials had sought initially to downplay or cover up the extent of the SARS epidemic last year). But there is one more important step that should be taken.
As part of the strategy aimed at greater cooperation, the steering committee of the WHO's World Health Assembly should call an emergency meeting and accede to Taiwan's request to participate in the organization as a "health entity" with observer status. As one of the world's major trading nations, over four million foreigners will visit Taiwan this year. Should the anticipated pandemic occur, the nation may prove to be more than a hub for trade. It will also serve as a hub for the epidemic. Taiwan's proximity to China -- a nation widely recognized as the origin of numerous strains of influenza and other infectious diseases -- only serves to exacerbate the danger.
Taiwan's exclusion from the WHO represents a serious threat both to the health of the Taiwanese people and the entire global community. As the executive board of the WHO proclaimed in 2001, "the globalization of infectious diseases is such that an outbreak in one country is potentially a threat to the whole world."
A virus originating in southern China may spread to Taiwan and onward to Japan or America in less than 24 hours.
One step the world should take to combat the anticipated outbreak of this virulent strain of influenza should be to admit Taiwan to the WHO without dithering or delay. The egregious errors of the SARS epidemic must not be repeated. The continued tolerance of what some Taiwanese officials describe as a practice of "health apartheid" constitutes a very real threat to the national security of all countries -- including China. Although Taipei's participation in the WHO may not be a panacea or a "magic bullet," it will undoubtedly help close one of the loopholes in the WHO's efforts at epidemic prevention. As such, it is a move that is long overdue.
Dennis Hickey is professor of political science at Southwest Missouri State University.
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
China’s recent aggressive military posture around Taiwan simply reflects the truth that China is a millennium behind, as Kobe City Councilor Norihiro Uehata has commented. While democratic countries work for peace, prosperity and progress, authoritarian countries such as Russia and China only care about territorial expansion, superpower status and world dominance, while their people suffer. Two millennia ago, the ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius (孟子) would have advised Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) that “people are the most important, state is lesser, and the ruler is the least important.” In fact, the reverse order is causing the great depression in China right now,
This should be the year in which the democracies, especially those in East Asia, lose their fear of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “one China principle” plus its nuclear “Cognitive Warfare” coercion strategies, all designed to achieve hegemony without fighting. For 2025, stoking regional and global fear was a major goal for the CCP and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA), following on Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) Little Red Book admonition, “We must be ruthless to our enemies; we must overpower and annihilate them.” But on Dec. 17, 2025, the Trump Administration demonstrated direct defiance of CCP terror with its record US$11.1 billion arms
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other