WHO Director-General Margaret Chan (陳馮富珍) of Hong Kong is to retire on June 30 after having led the world’s most powerful health organization for more than 10 years.
In 2003, Chan, who received strong criticism for her handling of the SARS outbreak during her term as Hong Kong director of health, was strongly recommended by the Chinese government to join the WHO as a mid-level official.
After obtaining her medical degree in Canada, she had not taken a key post at the WHO or any other UN agency and was barely known in global health circles. Despite that, when then-WHO director-general Lee Jong-wook of South Korea suddenly died in 2006 before finishing his term, the organization elected Chan, who was suddenly given the highest post in global health.
As Beijing has been actively participating in the UN to expand its influence, this was an unprecedented achievement.
It is not strange, then, that in addition to addressing the World Economic Forum when he paid his first formal visit to Europe as head of state last month, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) also made a point of visiting the UN’s European headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, where a meeting with Chan was high on the agenda.
During his visit, Xi promoted China’s comprehensive national health program, which is part of his goal to complete China’s transformation into a “modern socialist country” by 2049, the centennial of the founding of the People’s Republic of China.
Xi also tried to promote China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative by inviting WHO member states to build a “silk road of health” together and praised Chan for upholding Beijing’s “one China” principle.
Chan responded by saying that China is a founding member of the WHO and has made significant long-term contributions to global health.
The first of Chan’s two claims contradict Taiwan’s perspective, while the second contradicts global perception, as China triggered the worldwide SARS outbreaks in 2003.
In particular, Chan said that the WHO would firmly support the “one China” principle, a clear violation of the ideal that officials in international organizations should not promote views that lack an organizational consensus based on the instructions or views of a single member state. In making the statement, Chan clearly went beyond her authority.
On Jan. 23, one week after Xi’s visit to Geneva, the WHO’s executive board met to initiate its director-general election. Two days later, after a relatively relaxed process, the board nominated three candidates: Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, a former Ethiopian health minister representing Africa; David Nabarro, a British physician and special adviser to the UN secretary-general on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, representing Europe and the Americas; and Sania Nishtar, a former Pakistani science minister and the only female candidate, representing South Asia.
An election is to take place at the World Health Assembly in May. Interestingly, all three received their degrees and training in the UK.
International health experts think global health politics are facing a tough challenge before the vote. In particular, a new US administration has been hesitant about its UN participation, while Xi has increased his support for the UN peacekeeping forces and has tried to take control of the WHO to boost China’s international reputation. The international struggle for the next director-general and a new WHO has begun.
Since Chan is to retain her position at the congress, Taiwan’s participation as an observer will depend on Chan’s invitation. If these signs are not enough to concern the government, the public should prepare for the worst. It has been 20 years since Academia Sinica member Lee Chen-yuan (李鎮源) and other medical experts started pushing for Taiwanese membership in the WHO; this push is now about to come to an end, and Taiwan’s years of efforts are likely to have been in vain.
Peter Chang is a doctor and a former health official.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath