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.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers