One short faxed letter from WHO Director-General Margaret Chan (陳馮富珍) inviting “Chinese Taipei” to participate in this month’s World Health Assembly (WHA) brought an end to 13 years of disappointment on Tuesday when Taiwan finally achieved its goal of representation at the WHO.
The government predictably patted itself on the back, attributing the watershed to its “modus vivendi” policy of not provoking China, and sought to demonstrate that it had not compromised Taiwan’s sovereignty to gain this achievement.
But at what cost was this “breakthrough” achieved?
The very fact that Taiwan had to be invited and was not admitted in the usual manner is the first cause for concern. The invitation came after secret negotiations last month between representatives from Taipei and Beijing. And while many in Taiwan will be pleased with the result, it is imperative that the government stick to its March 13 promise that it will release information at an appropriate time about how this was achieved.
Unlike China, Taiwan is a democracy, in which transparency is essential for accountability. The public needs to know if the government is — as it says — acting in their best interests and that this was not the result of more secretive meetings between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party.
People should not be content with reassurances that this is just the latest example of Beijing’s “goodwill” if such goodwill is conditional on the Taiwanese government considering itself part of China.
While “Chinese Taipei” may be an acceptable name to the government, to the rest of the world it implies that Taiwan is under Beijing’s heel.
The so-called increase in Taiwan’s international breathing space is nothing of the sort.
By becoming a non-state observer — China will not allow any other form of membership — and not a full member of the WHO, Taiwan puts itself in the same company as the Palestinian territories and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.
It is far short of the stated goal of most Taiwanese: admission to the WHO as a member state. Is this how most of them view their country, and what they envisioned when they said they wanted meaningful participation?
Another problem is that the invitation only applies to this year. Fears that the invitation will need renewing on an annual basis seem to have been confirmed. This is a worrying development as it means Beijing will now have the ability to hold Taiwanese and their health concerns to a form of ransom. How long will it be before we start seeing election slogans such as “Vote KMT, stay in the WHA?”
While many people may be happy about what they see as the fruits of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) cross-strait labor, they may not be so ecstatic when they realize this government has pushed them another step toward unification.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS