As government officials have said, the WHO does not have any permanent observers, but the organization’s legal advisers say that a “semi-permanent” observer mechanism has been developed and that these observers are invited by the World Health Assembly (WHA) director-general to participate in the WHA each year. This is a significant difference.
These observers are divided into three groups. The Vatican is the only “non-member state observer.” Then there are “observers” that are selected and invited by the director-general, including the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. These observers are not countries.
The third category consists of observers invited in accordance with WHA resolutions Nos. 27 and 37. The Palestinian territories are the only observer in this category and require the special step of an invitation by the general assembly.
It would be difficult for China to accept Taiwan as a non-member state observer because this would be a form of dual recognition. Since the Taiwanese government has also repeatedly rejected the option of dual recognition, following the example of the Vatican is not feasible.
The model of the Palestinian territories, on the other hand, avoids the question of national status altogether, leaving a gray area for Taipei and Beijing to each interpret in their own way. This tallies with the government’s policy of pursuing neither independence nor unification, and, based on a WHA resolution, future directors-general would be required to invite Taiwan each year.
To achieve this, a WHA resolution would be necessary, but none of Taiwan’s allies has submitted a motion to the general assembly, which means that the chances for a resolution are slim.
The other option is for Taiwan to become a non-state observer on an annual basis at the invitation of the director-general. The regulations state that such an observer is not a country and there is no room for interpretation. Although the director-general invites these entities annually according to convention, he or she does not have an obligation to do so. Taiwan’s situation is unique and could not be treated as routine.
Accepting this observer status would be tantamount to denying that Taiwan is a country, since the WHO Secretariat would invite Taiwan as an observer based on the memorandum of understanding that it signed with Beijing in 2005. And yet, even if Taiwan belittled itself in this manner, the secretariat would be under no obligation to invite it. How would Taiwan react if the secretariat found some pretext to snub it?
I urge the government not to make reckless decisions simply for domestic political goals lest Taiwan’s international position be dealt another damaging blow.
Chiang Huang-chih is an associate professor in the Department of Law at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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