In the meeting between Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
As members of the Foundation of Medical Professionals Alliance, a non-governmental organization (NGO) spearheading the advocacy of Taiwan's WHO entry bid, we firmly oppose Taiwan's WHO participation being based unrealistically on China's "consent and help." The reasons are three-fold:
First, if we were willing to make concessions to join the WHO with China's "consent," we could have long since become a member. According to chapter three of the WHO's constitution, there can be three types of WHO participants: member, associate member and observer.
Full membership is open to members of the UN. Associate membership is open to colonial or self-governing territories. As for observership, there is no standard criteria -- observers can be a sovereign nation, a quasi-sovereign nation or an NGO.
From Beijing's perspective, Taiwan is a province of China; therefore, Taiwan can be admitted to the WHO only if China files an associate membership application on Taiwan's behalf, or if individual Taiwanese medical professionals join China's WHO delegation. But this would relegate Taiwan to the position of being a colony of China.
Even the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region under China's "one country, two systems" policy is no more than an associate member, so if Taiwan accepts China's conditions, its status will be degraded to that of Hong Kong.
Taiwan, after all, has a full-fledged governmental health department, which has the ability to exercise public power. It is not an NGO. And even if Taiwan were to enter the WHO as an NGO, its troubles would be far from over, as China may continue to raise obstacles and undermine Taiwan's status as a sovereign nation in cases where public power is used to intervene in international health issues.
Second, health statistics for each side of the Taiwan Strait are quite different. Taiwan and China have been separated for more than a century, and there are tremendous cross-strait divergences.
China's overall health system performance ranks 144th among 191 WHO member states. Therefore, joining the Chinese delegation to the WHO would not satisfy Taiwanese people's healthcare needs. Not to mention that in tackling an outbreak, there would surely be no time for Taiwan to wait for Beijing to release WHO information -- which has to pass through several layers of bureaucracy.
Third, yielding to China's conditions to facilitate Taiwan's WHO bid would be no different than endorsing China's lies at the WHO over the past years. Since Taiwan's initial advocacy in promoting its WHO participation, China has stood by the falsehood that it is helping Taiwan in many medical fields. We want to ask, when did China earmark any of its healthcare funds for Taiwan? Which of Taiwan's health research projects was funded by China?
In sum, Taiwan's WHO entry bid must not become a tool of cross-strait political rivalry. Rather, it should be the basic right of the 23 million Taiwanese people. If Taiwan joins the WHO on the premise of China's consent, Taiwan's healthcare contributions and achievements will all be taken by China as its own.
Wu Shuh-min is president of the Foundation of Medical Professionals Alliance.
TRANSLATED BY LIN YA-TI
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants. On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS