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.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS