President-elect Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) recent comments about how Taiwan should go about this year’s WHO membership application are troubling.
Taiwan is a de facto independent state with unsettled legal status. Japan gave up Taiwan in the San Francisco Peace Treaty without designating a receiver. Therefore, Taiwan should use the geographic name “Taiwan” to apply for the WHO entry until a future referendum on the status of the island is conducted by the 23 million people in Taiwan.
“Taiwan” is the name used by most Taiwanese when telling others where they are from and is also the name used by Taiwanese manufacturers to label where their products are made. The name “Taiwan” is known by most people in the world. Applying to the WHO under this name eliminates any confusion.
A country can be admitted under one of the three categories listed under the guidelines of the WHO. Since Taiwan is not yet a member of the UN, it cannot be admitted under the first category which has the prerequisite of already being a UN member and accepting the WHO’s Constitution.
Further, since Taiwan conducts its own foreign affairs, it does not fall into the third category which is for associate members of existing states.
Nevertheless, Taiwan can apply for WHO membership under the second category and should continue to campaign consistently in this way.
Even though China will make Taiwan’s WHO membership application difficult, the important thing is to gather the momentum of support and sympathy for Taiwan. The understanding of how dangerous it is to exclude Taiwan from the global health network and a gradual shift of support and cooperation by the medical professionals are just as important as dealing with the politicians.
Hence, despite all odds against it, Taiwan should maintain private contacts with medical professionals, keeping citizens informed on health issues through medical blogs instead of waiting for epidemic alerts from the WHO.
The name “Chinese Taipei” was an unfortunate measure adopted through negotiations with the Olympic Committee (IOC) before Taiwan’s democratization and was merely intended to enable our athletes to participate in the Olympic Games. Taiwanese should not voluntarily jump into the trap ourselves with new membership applications.
While some people believe that since World War II, under the laws of war Taiwan is an unincorporated overseas territory of the US, Ma’s suggestion to use “Chinese Taipei” for Taiwan’s WHO membership application is arguable whereas Taiwan is the inarguable geographic name of the island. Any adjective combined with the name of a city is not an appropriate name representing Taiwan.
A flip-flop of names in the WHO membership application will hurt the Taiwanese, it will only leave the international community with an image that Taiwan is not consistent in its stance on its identity.
Ma’s intended approach will backfire and benefit only the Chinese authorities, especially using the adjective “Chinese,” with its implication of People’s Republic of China authority.
Doing the Chinese authorities a favor by diminishing Taiwan into a province of China is certainly not in the interest of the Taiwanese.
Policies that will put Taiwan at a further disadvantage against its unfriendly neighbor should be avoided. Seeking to improve the general welfare of Taiwanese should be Ma’s agenda.
ALISON HSIEH
Athens, Greece
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS