The five-day World Health Assembly (WHA) has ended and Taiwan’s delegation has returned. Apart from making a minor complaint about Taiwan’s designation as a part of China used to take part in the assembly, the government seems to be very happy about this year’s attendance.
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration said it cherished the opportunity and expressed gratitude for being able to take part, and repeatedly referred to the “inroads” made by attending. Ma said he hoped the model for Taiwan’s participation in the WHA could be applied to other international organizations and that Taiwanese would appreciate the hard-won results that would secure more benefits for the country. How can he be so wrong, over and over again?
The inroads the government kept referring to include having Taiwan’s name changed from “Taiwan, China” into “Chinese Taipei,” being elevated to “observer” status and being allowed to attend the WHA instead of only technical meetings. However, these inroads are all contingent on prior agreement by China. In fact, if Beijing were willing, it could also allow the Hong Kong and Macau special administrative regions to take part in the events in the same manner it “allows” “Chinese Taipei” to do so. How can the government let Taiwan’s participation in international organizations be dictated by China?
The government has been bragging about taking part in more than 200 related meetings and the “direct contacts” it has made. However, compared with Taiwan’s participation in international organizations prior to 2008, a big change occurred after 2009: Whether it is the WHA or other meetings, the WHO has made it clear that Taiwan’s delegations represent “Taiwan, Province of China.” Neither the government nor the attendees protested against this. The more Taiwan participates on these conditions, the more China’s territorial claims to Taiwan will be consolidated, which will only see the erosion of Taiwanese independence.
On the surface, it would seem that allowing Taiwan to use the name “Chinese Taipei” for five days at the WHA was a sign of goodwill, but the leaked classified documents from the WHO Secretariat reveals the ill intent behind this.
Apart from the WHA, Taiwan is participating in a plethora of international organizations under the name “Chinese Taipei,” both as a member and as an observer. However, Chinese approval is not required for participation in any of these organizations, nor are prior consultations with Beijing. And while China keeps denying that “Chinese Taipei” is a country, none of these organizations have issued documents saying “Taiwan is a province of China.”
More importantly, Taiwan had never before kept quiet or failed to protest against Chinese claims that it was a province of China. However, since 2009, Taiwan’s participation in the WHA and related events has been based on the tacit acceptance of the premise that it is a province of China.
An analysis based on international law reveals at least three problems with this mode of participation. First, it gives rise to concerns that Taiwan is committed to the view that it is part of China and risks getting caught up in the Chinese framework wherein there is “one China” with three special administrative regions. Second, all Taiwanese participation in international organizations will be decided by China, and Taiwan will only be notified that its attendance is allowed. Conversely, Taiwan will be cut off from all participation that China does not approve. And third, by referring to Taiwan as “Chinese Taipei,” it is more likely that Taiwan will also be referred to as “Taiwan, Province of China” in international organizations in which it has independent member status.
The previous administration was aware that the model for taking part in the WHO belittled Taiwan’s status as a nation, with former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) protesting loudly and ordering his delegation to protest the name issue. Now, however, government aides and staff are avoiding these important issues, concentrating on less serious issues in their legal analysis and misleading the public with these trifles. Perhaps it is because the presidential and legislative elections are around the corner, and the government cannot admit that the model for WHA participation in 2009 was a serious diplomatic mistake. Instead, it has said it wants to apply the WHA model to participation in all international organizations. The Hoklo (otherwise known as Taiwanese) phrase about “being kidnapped and sold off and then helping your captors count the money” (讓人賣了還替人數鈔票) comes to mind here.
The sovereignty issue is very complex and it may be hard for the general public, as well as medical and public health experts, to fully comprehend its significance, but why can’t those in power sort these things out better?
The government should at least be able to respond to these issues and make an appropriate statement to the public to the effect that neither the WHO nor any other UN organization can decide Taiwan’s status and that Taiwan refuses to acknowledge the status decided on by the secretariat.
As for expanding the WHA model to other organizations, the government should rein in its horses before it is too late.
Chiang Huang-chih is a professor of law at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US