After President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was inaugurated on May 20, the general feeling was that China’s attitude toward Taiwan’s participation in the WHO would be a benchmark for the improvement of cross-strait relations — especially in regard to Taipei’s bid for observer status in the World Health Assembly (WHA), the WHO’s main governing body.
Several days ago, the director of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, Wang Yi (王毅), said that China remained opposed to Taiwan’s entry into the WHO, but would seek certain “legal frameworks” outside the WHO to assist in the transfer of health and disease data.
Let’s put aside what constitutes a “legal framework” outside the WHO, because China in 2005 had one such framework within the body that was specifically designed for Taiwan. In May that year, China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the WHO secretariat on Taiwan’s status.
Although the contents of the MOU have not been made public as required by international convention, subsequent events suggest that it contains at least the following stipulations:
First, contact between Taiwan and the WHO cannot give the impression that Taiwan and China are separate countries. If experts are to be sent to Taiwan, agreement must be obtained from Beijing prior to departure. If the WHO has important information to deliver, it must also first pass it to China. As for Taiwanese specialists who wish to attend conferences, in addition to applications to the WHO, they require the permission of Beijing authorities. If these specialists attend, Chinese government officials or specialists must also be present, while their place of origin must be stated as “Taiwan, China.”
The MOU has made Taiwan’s dealings with the WHO more difficult. For instance, the process for attending conferences and assessing qualifications takes at least five weeks; applications by Taiwanese specialists are therefore frequently unsuccessful.
Between 2005 and last year, the WHO held around 1,000 conferences on infectious diseases. However, Taiwan’s Centers for Disease Control were only notified of 40 of these events. Even worse, of these 40, Taiwanese specialists were only permitted to attend nine.
In the past year, the WHO sent out 236 health-related messages, but only 16 of those were relayed to Taiwan by China. And of these, many were so late that information had already begun appearing in the international media before they arrived.
During the WHO’s January executive board meeting and during the WHA meeting in May, three years after the MOU was signed, Chinese officials proudly claimed that the health needs of the Taiwanese people were being met through the extremely partial and incomplete communications conducted under the MOU. Further, the officials cited Taiwanese donations after the Sichuan earthquake as proof of cross-strait health exchanges and boasted of solving the problem of Taiwan’s participation in the WHO. They then criticized Taiwan’s application for entry into the WHO as strategizing and seeking “political ends.”
If we look at Wang’s language, as well as that in the recent meeting between Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), we can discern a difference between China’s attitude toward Taiwan’s entry into the WHO domestically and internationally.
Internationally, China promotes the benefits “felt” by Taiwanese through the MOU, but for those Taiwanese who have not “felt” these “benefits,” China promises to “continue considering” expanding Taiwan’s participation. In the end, all that Taiwan gets is a firm refusal and restrictions based on a “legal framework.” The imperatives of health and human rights ultimately lose out to fulfilling China’s “political ends.”
Joining the WHO has long been a consensus issue in Taiwan. Naturally, Taiwanese support the government in its efforts to come up with new solutions, even if there are differences of opinion on some points, such as the nation’s title. Ultimately, however, there is a common goal of having Taiwan fully and officially participate in the WHO in accordance with the nation’s needs.
Yet the situation has developed in a different direction. Will the new government continue to rely entirely on the “goodwill” of China on this crucial question? Will it allow China to hold Taiwan hostage through the use of various “legal frameworks” and offer more platitudes to the effect of a China in which “each side has its own interpretation”? These actions provide nothing for Taiwan’s campaign to participate in world health issues.
In the current international climate, believing that WHO entry can be separated from cross-strait maneuvering is naive. Even so, continuing to foster support in the international community and using this support as a bargaining chip when negotiating with China remains the most beneficial course.
Lin Shih-chia is executive director of the Foundation of Medical Professionals Alliance in Taiwan.
TRANSLATED BY ANGELA HONG
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS