China's State Councillor Tang Jiaxuan (
It is no secret that the biggest obstacle to Taiwan's long overdue participation in the WHO is Beijing. Taiwan has every right to join the WHO as a member or, at the very least, an observer to begin with. If removing itself as the roadblock to Taiwan's WHO entry is the "help" to which Tang referred, then everyone who is beaten by a bully should thank the bully after the beating stops. What kind of twisted logic is this?
Beijing's so-called "help" -- assuming that it really happens -- isn't being offered out of the goodness of its heart. It has more to do with the overwhelming international pressure mounting as a result of passage of the "Anti-Secession" Law. Under the circumstances, Beijing feels compelled to offer a facade of"goodwill" to ease international condemnation.
If Taiwan owed anyone gratitude, it would be countries such as the US and Japan, which not only voted in favor of Taiwan's participation during last year's World Health Assembly (WHA) but voiced concern about the Anti-Secession Law, and the European Parliament, which on Thursday adopted a resolution in support of Taiwan's WHO participation.
Under the circumstances, for the KMT claim any credit for the so-called "help" offered by China is truly shameless. After all, didn't KMT Chairman Lien Chan (
Besides, it is hard to tell -- based on the ambiguous statements of Tang revealed so far -- whether this "help" is a sugar-coated poison after all. If Beijing's idea of "participation" by Taiwan is for Taipei to dispatch some representatives to join the Chinese delegation to the WHA, then thanks, but no thanks. Beijing had tried to pull similar stunts before -- inviting individuals from Taiwan to join a Chinese delegation. That kind of "participation" is of course completely meaningless, since Taiwan and China are under completely separate governments and health systems.
Then there is also the scenario that Taiwan could join an international organization as either an observer or member under the name of "Taiwan, China," or some other name that suggest Taiwan is part of China or that concede to Beijing "one China" principle. If that is the case, then the KMT not only is undeserving of any gratitude from the Taiwanese people, but should be condemned for selling them out.
The main reason that the cross-strait relationship has been at an impasse in recent years is that Beijing insists any official cross-strait dialogue must be conditioned on Taiwan's acceptance of its "one China" principle. If the price that Taiwan is asked to pay for its WHO participation is this, then Taiwan simply must decline.
Even if Taiwan cannot join under the name of "Republic of China," "Taiwan," or any other name that indicates its sovereign status, it should at the very least be allowed to join as an independent health entity and be accorded independent membership or observer status.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS