Various Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) VIPs, including former chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄), have visited Beijing in attempts to improve cross-strait relations. After returning to Taiwan, Wu humbly declared that he was well-treated by the Chinese before dispatching Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) to negotiate the details of weekend chartered flights and Chinese tourism to Taiwan. But there were previous statements that, once dialogue resumed, Taiwan’s participation in the WHO would be the main priority for discussion.
One begins to wonder if there are matters of greater urgency, or if Taiwan’s WHO membership is no longer considered a priority.
There is no need to relate the oppression that Taiwan has suffered in its attempts to join the WHO. China’s formulation of the “Anti-Secession” Law in March 2005 shocked Taiwan and drew international criticism. But in April of that year, Lien led a group to visit China. In response, China exhibited “goodwill” and in May signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the WHO, promising that information would be passed on to Taiwan and that channels of communication would remain open.
The MOU is built on the precondition that Taiwan is the territory of the People’s Republic of China and must look to the Chinese government for decisions in all matters. Although the government did not accept the memorandum, the WHO secretariat implemented it — a fine example of how Beijing’s “goodwill” operates.
The Department of Health says that between 2005 and last year the WHO held 1,000 technical conferences on infectious diseases. China only informed Taiwan’s Centers for Disease Control of 40 of these events, and Taiwanese experts were only permitted to attend nine. In the last year, the WHO sent 236 health-related notices, only 16 of which were relayed to Taiwan. Of those, most were so delayed that the message was received only after the diseases had been covered in the international press.
Citing the MOU, Chinese representatives to the WHO claim that the medical and health requirements of their “Taiwanese compatriots” are well cared for, that “Taiwanese compatriots” are participating fully in WHO-related events and that China will fully assist in fulfilling the needs of its “Taiwanese compatriots.”
At this year’s World Health Assembly meeting, members asked why Taiwan only received information concerning shigella after a long delay. China calmly replied that the enormity of its country and the size of its population occasionally leads to delays, but that they would work to improve their ability to inform. Their attitude is an immeasurable tragedy for Taiwan.
Following Wu’s recent efforts, China appears once again to be demonstrating their “goodwill.” Yet whether the WHO is still a priority remains unknown. The government may believe that this opportunity must not be missed, and that all should be conducted according to the supreme will of China. But if participation in the WHO must follow the conditions of the aforementioned MOU, then no matter what amendments are made, the degree and nature of participation will remain entirely dependent on Beijing.
The price of accepting this framework is placing Taiwan within the People’s Republic of China. If Taiwan can only increase its participation based on this type of “goodwill,” then in practice it is at the cost of our autonomy. Rather than increasing Taiwan’s international space, this model brings further constraint. The government should proceed cautiously lest it make dire errors in its impatient pursuit of a diplomatic breakthrough.
Chiang Huang-chih is an associate professor at National Taiwan University’s College of Law.
Translated by Angela Hong
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
RSS