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.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS