A confidential WHO memo that recently surfaced directed staffers to refer to Taiwan as “Taiwan, Province of China.” This is not only clearly at odds with the use of “Chinese Taipei,” the name under which Taiwan is represented in the observers’ gallery of the World Health Assembly (WHA), but also seriously demeans Taiwan, suggesting that it is a province under the jurisdiction of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The very idea runs counter to the “one China, each side with its own interpretation” policy of the government of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
It is no wonder that, under the fierce admonitions of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the Ma government protested to the WHO and Beijing authorities, expressing its resolve to protect Taiwan’s sovereignty. The question is, what other option does Taiwan have to protect its sovereignty beyond simply protesting?
As far as the Ma government’s interpretation of the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution is concerned, there was little to protest against in the WHO decision to refer to Taiwan as a province of China because the WHO recognizes that, under the ROC Constitution, both Taiwan and mainland China are part of the territory of the ROC. However, according to UN General Assembly Resolution No. 2758, the PRC government has replaced that of the ROC as the only legitimate representative of China to the UN.
Consequently, calling Taiwan a province of China within the international organization of the UN is the same as regarding Taiwan as a province under the jurisdiction of the PRC, while the ROC government, the democratically elected de facto government of Taiwan, is no longer regarded as legitimate in the international community.
This is another reason why the government should protest to the WHO.
It is quite apparent that the government should protest to the WHO that Taiwan is not a province under the jurisdiction of the PRC. The WHO, however, could respond that it had only used the term “Taiwan, Province of China,” not “Taiwan, Province of the PRC.”
Also, remember that as far as the UN and all its related institutions are concerned, the PRC replaced the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China in 1971, and unless the Ma government intends to wrest that status back, any protests that Taiwan is not a province of China are not only unconstitutional (in terms of the ROC Constitution), they also create the existence of “two Chinas” in the international community.
So far, the Ma government has refrained from adopting a policy to restore a UN seat for the ROC, as it is deeply fearful that to do so would wreck relations with China.
On the other hand, even though Taiwan is prioritizing reconciliation through cross-strait ties, Beijing authorities are continuing to apply pressure on Taiwan in its participation in international events.
Whereas on the surface Beijing seems to have allowed Taiwan to attend the recent five-day WHA convention as an observer, Chinese officials have also unilaterally insisted that in all documents between international organizations, Taiwan is to be referred to as a province of China under the jurisdiction of the PRC. This idea first emerged in 2005 with the passage of Beijing’s “Anti-Secession” Law, the confidential memorandum of understanding between China and the WHO being incontrovertible evidence of this.
However, China’s attempts to get other countries to accept that Taiwan is part of the PRC have not been universally successful. The “one China” policy followed by certain countries such as the US, Japan and several EU nations acknowledges Beijing’s advocacy of the view that Taiwan is part of China, but stops short of recognizing or conceding that Taiwan is a province of the PRC, and even holds that Taiwan’s international status has yet to be resolved.
All of these powers oppose the unilateral change of status quo in the Taiwan Strait and insist on the resolution of cross-strait disputes through peaceful means.
Given this, Taiwan should do more than just protest publicly about what has happened. It should solicit the support of the US, Japan and European countries, and take the matter up with the WHO, clarifying the point that the name the WHO is using for Taiwan is at odds with their own respective “one China” policies.
They should then lodge a formal demarche with the WHO stating how their own interpretations differ from that of China’s, to ensure that the latter does not succeed in unilaterally changing the definition of the cross-strait status quo.
There is a precedent to this. In 2007, the UN returned Taiwan’s instrument of accession to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, citing that for all purposes Taiwan was to be regarded as a part of the PRC. In response, the US reportedly issued a formal note to the UN secretariat saying that such a position did not co-nform to the stance on Taiwan’s status consistently held not only by the US, but also by several other major powers, requiring the secretariat to correct the error. It’s this kind of formal intervention by major powers that will have a real impact on the clarification of jurisdiction issues related to the cross-strait status quo.
In addition to public protests, Taiwan should also take this matter up with the WHO, together with the US, Japan and European states friendly with it, clarifying the point that the name for Taiwan being used by the WHO is inconsistent with these countries’ interpretation of the “one China” policy. Taiwan should move to require them to amend the error and lodge a formal notice.
Unfortunately, the Ma government’s envoy already agreed in Geneva in 2009 with the representative of the PRC government on the arrangements for Taiwan’s participation in the 2009 WHA convention as an observer. Since Ma’s officials reached this agreement in Geneva and subsequently attended the convention in line with that agreement, it would be difficult for the US or other countries to intervene in arrangements already agreed by China and Taiwan.
That is to say, if Taiwan concedes to arrangements made between China and the WHO, it is going to be very difficult for other countries to step in. The time has come for the government to make public the agreement it reached with the Chinese representative in Geneva, to regain credibility in the eyes of the world.
David Huang is an associate research fellow at the Institute of European and American Studies at Academia Sinica.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations