Taiwan's seventh attempt to join the World Health Organiza-tion (WHO) has been shot down by China's political interference. The opposition's reaction to the World Health Assembly's (WHA) decision to exclude Taiwan's bid for observer status from its agenda was shameful.
The government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs all condemned Beijing's duplicity. While intentionally blocking Taiwan's bid for participation in the WHO, Beijing publicly lied to the WHA that it has lent a helping hand to Taiwan. President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) even proposed a referendum on whether Taiwan should be allowed into the WHO in order to display to the world the determination of the country to join the global health network.
Pan-blue leaders have sneered at Chen's suggestion. While accusing Beijing of "unwisely" blocking Taiwan's bid for the WHO, KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) poured cold water on the plebiscite idea, saying that a referendum wasn't necessary be-cause it "politicizes the issue." PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) argued that "to support Taiwan's bid for the WHO is like eating -- there is no need to hold a referendum to decide if one is hungry."
Pan-blue legislators further implied that Chen is trying to distract public attention away from the government's poor handling of the SARS epidemic.
These arguments are baseless and prove only that the Lien-Soong ticket is against the will of Taiwan's 23 million people.
First, it is Beijing that has been politicizing Taipei's participation in the WHO. China's foreign ministry has reiterated that "Taiwan, as a province of China, is not entitled to join the WHO or participate in any capacity." Chinese Vice Premier Wu Yi (吳儀) shed crocodile tears and lied to the world about how much concern and assistance it has shown to Taiwan.
Taiwan has been trying to avoid political controversy with its WTO bid by seeking observer status as a "health entity," not as a sovereign state. The WTO recognizes it as an "economic entity." At international tuna-management conferences, it is a "fishing entity." What the public wants is participation. There is no justifiable reason to deny Taiwan a constructive role in the world health system.
Second, participation in the WHO is not as simple as eating a meal. Most people in Taiwan, including ruling and opposition parties, agree Taiwan should not be excluded from the world health system. What separates the pan-green and pan-blue camps is the strategy to reach such a goal. The Chen administration has been trying to downplay the WHO bid to the level of pure health concerns. What better alternative has the opposition offered?
What scares the pan-blue camp about referendums is the possibility of "creeping" independence. They are afraid that the DPP might use a referendum law as a tool to hold a plebiscite and decide the country's future. Such a mentality tends to politicize the issue and falls into the unification-independence dichotomy.
In any advanced democracy, the right to health and to hold a referendum are fundamental rights and the significance of a referendum would be to create a consensus and clearly express the public's resolve.
If the opposition is worried about the trouble the referendum might create in terms sensitive issues such as national identity or relations with China, they could work with the DPP to clearly define the agenda of the referendum. A referendum law could likely limit its scope to local issues or non-political issues. If an official referendum is not available, there should be room for consultative referendums. The opposition must have justifiable reasons to convince people why they can not exercise such unalienable rights.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with