The World Health Organization (WHO) is currently debating whether to include in the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) language that would extend those regulations to "independent health territories" such as Taiwan. If the proposal for such an amendment by Taiwan's allies such as the US, Nicaragua, and Paraguay is accepted, it would be a major step forward in Taiwan's long campaign to join the health organization.
The WHO members adopted the International Sanitary Regulations -- later renamed the IHR -- as early as 1951. The goal of the IHR is to prevent and minimize the spread of communicable diseases across borders, with the initial focus on cholera, yellow fever, smallpox, relapsing fever and typhus. The origin of the IHR can be traced all the way back to the early 1800s, when cholera epidemics swept Europe and led to the first International Sanitary Conference in 1851, one the earliest attempts at multilateral cooperation to control the spread of epidemics. Within the next five decades, several conventions on the spread of infectious disease across borders were negotiated.
The history of the IHR shows the dire need for international cooperation to control epidemics. This need has become even more acute with the rapid increase in international travel. No one country in its right mind can believe that it can slam the door on infectious diseases spreading through its borders from other parts of the world. No one country can shy away from its duty as a member of the globalized world to cooperate with other members in combating epidemics, regardless of where a disease originated. Nor can any country be complacent about the threat posed to its people's health by communicable diseases, when the helping hands of an international cooperative mechanism does not reach its borders.
Unfortunately, Taiwan to this day continues to be shut out of such a cooperative mechanism, despite the fact that it is in other ways a fully-participating member of the international community. The people of Taiwan continue to be deprived of the benefits of the WHO. Any government that allows this to happen to its people should be condemned. Except, of course, this did not happen to Taiwan by choice. Dispute the Taiwan government's earnest and prolonged effort, the malicious obstruction from the Chinese government -- which claims Taiwan is not a sovereign state and merely a Chinese province -- has persuaded the WHO to shut its doors to Taiwan.
Under the circumstances, it is of course not surprising that the amendment proposed by Taiwan's allies has met with strong Chinese objection. China cites as reasons for excluding Taiwan the fact that "territory" is not a legally recognized concept under public international law, that the WHO is an inter-governmental organization and that the IHR is a treaty between countries.
One cannot help but wonder, in a situation where people's health is concerned and lives are at stake, should priority instead be given to political and legal disputes? The truth is that the Chinese government does not effectively govern Taiwan and it cannot represent Taiwan on health-related issues. At the same time, Taiwan remains isolated, with no recourse to the WHO's health "safety net." If this situation is allowed to continue, the people of Taiwan and also people in other countries will be exposed to serious health threats.
It is true that the successful inclusion of the language proposed by Taiwan's allies into the amendments of the IHR will not give Taiwan WHO membership. However, it would give Taiwan critically-needed access to the international health safety net -- and that would be progress.
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing