In the past few weeks, the nation’s attention was focused on the students’ occupation of the Legislative Yuan. The Sunflower movement may appear to be a domestic issue, but a closer look reveals an important international angle. The Taiwanese government has been adopting a China-leaning approach, basically saying that to join the international community and broaden Taiwan’s international space, it needs to work through Beijing.
However, the Sunflower movement shows that most Taiwanese view the situation differently. They feel that as a full-fledged democracy, Taiwan can and should play a more prominent role internationally. In a way, that is also playing out in the debate on Taiwan’s participation at the WHO.
The World Health Assembly (WHA) is holding its annual session starting on May 19. Taiwan has been invited for the sixth time since 2009 as President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) moves closer to China. On the surface, this looks like an achievement, but a closer look shows that this approach is fraught with problems.
First, while it is a positive sign that Taiwan’s health minister can attend the WHA session, Taiwan, as an observer, does not have the rights and privileges of being a member and is totally dependent on Beijing’s “goodwill.” Should China find some policy or action by Taiwan irksome, it can withdraw its approval and the whole scheme would collapse.
Taiwan’s observer status has also limited its involvement in the work of the WHO, that is, the exchange of information on medical and public health issues.
In its report to the US Congress in April last year, the US Department of State described Taiwan’s participation in the WHO as “sporadic and intermittent.”
Part of the problem is that WHO Director-General Margaret Chan (陳馮富珍), who is from Hong Kong, has let herself be unduly influenced by Beijing on the Taiwan issue. Under her guidance, the WHO issued instructions to its staff to refer to Taiwan as “Taiwan, Province of China.”
This was neither acceptable to Taiwan nor the US, which informed Chan that this practice was contrary to US policy.
However, the US itself can also take a step in the right direction. For a number of years now, US policymakers — including US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel Russel — have stated that Washington supports Taiwan’s participation in international organizations where statehood is not a requirement. This “statehood” clause is an unnecessary self-imposed restriction that hinders rather than helps Taiwan’s participation in global bodies.
Furthermore, it has no basis in the Taiwan Relations Act. The State Department should drop this clause, so Taiwan can be more equally and equitably involved in international bodies. As long as Taiwan is not more fully involved in the WHO’s activities and exchanges on public health, there will be a gaping hole in the global health network.
Due to Taiwan’s international isolation it is in a vulnerable position and cannot play its role in the international health prevention network. Taiwan has a lot to give: It has established a national healthcare system that is generally considered a good example of its kind.
Taiwan is now a full democracy. It aspires to be accepted by the world community as a full and equal member, and has worked hard at membership in the WHO for almost two decades now. The progress has been slow, in part due to Beijing’s recalcitrance, but also in part because of lack of sufficient international support.
The Sunflower activists represent a breakthrough in Taiwan’s political landscape. Perhaps Taiwan can make a similar breakthrough internationally, with the nation receiving equal treatment and joining the WHO without having to go through Beijing.
Joyce Huang has a master’s in human rights from Columbia University.
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
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
RSS