If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, yes, it does make a sound. By the same token, a secret deal struck between two parties without other parties or the public being informed can have a very real impact. And if a memorandum of understanding (MOU) is signed between Beijing and the WHO without Taiwan being consulted, it very clearly exists.
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) statement on Monday to the contrary was, to put it bluntly, dumbfounding.
China’s “secret” MOU with the WHO is hardly secret — and both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Health have no problem acknowledging the existence of this document, which reportedly stipulates that communication between the WHO and Taiwan can only take place with Beijing’s consent.
After Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) said earlier this month that the Presidential Office was unsure whether the MOU existed, Ma made similar remarks on Monday, questioning the former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration’s claim that an MOU was signed.
“We are uncertain whether China signed an MOU with the WHO ... but because [the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)] was not in power at the time, we have no way of finding out,” Ma said in an interview with Taiwan’s China Television.
In light of past statements by officials in his administration, including Department of Health Minister Yeh Ching-chuan (葉金川) and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrew Hsia (夏立言), Ma was setting himself up for trouble. Given their open and unambiguous discussion of the MOU, the president must have had a clear motive for an about-face that could only make him look disingenuous.
It seems unlikely that Ma or any other top figure in the KMT would doubt the MOU’s existence. In 2005, then-director of the KMT’s Mainland Affairs Department Chang Jung-kung (張榮恭) was quoted by several media outlets, including the Central News Agency, as saying that he had been informed of the MOU’s contents by Taiwan-related agencies in China. The MOU took effect on May 14, 2005, Chang told the media.
But the evidence doesn’t stop there. Although the MOU has never formally been made public, WHO Director-General Margaret Chan (陳馮富珍) mentioned the document in an interview with China’s state-run Xinhua news agency.
“On Taiwan’s participation in the WHO’s technical activities, Chan said the WHO would deal with the issue in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed with China,” Xinhua reported on Nov. 27, 2006. “The MoU on Taiwan health and medical experts’ participation in WHO technical activities was signed between the Chinese Ministry of Health and the WHO Secretariat in 2005.”
“Facts show that the memorandum has played a positive role,” said Chan, then newly elected as the world health body’s director-general.
No one, it would seem, is denying the existence of the MOU except the Presidential Office. The goal, it seems, is to convince the public that Taiwan’s admittance to the World Health Assembly as an observer this year was not achieved through Beijing, as would be required by the MOU.
But traces of the MOU are everywhere. The question is what the president stands to gain from squandering his credibility.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
To recalibrate its Cold War alliances, the US adopted its “one China policy,” a diplomatic compromise meant to engage with China and end the Vietnam War, but which left Taiwan in a state of permanent limbo. Half a century later, the costs of that policy are mounting. Taiwan remains a democratic, technologically advanced nation of 23 million people, yet it is denied membership in international organizations and stripped of diplomatic recognition. Meanwhile, the PRC has weaponized the “one China” narrative to claim sovereignty over Taiwan, label the Taiwan Strait as its “internal waters” and threaten international shipping routes that carry more
RSS