After a break since 2009, the annual circus in Geneva, Switzerland, is back for the second time.
The circus’ main attraction is the participation of Taiwan in the World Health Assembly (WHA), which is the decisionmaking body of the WHO.
The return of the circus reveals the unstainable and naive WHO policies of the former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government and of the EU. Moreover, the entire situation reveals China as an international troublemaker.
Since 2009, the EU and many European politicians have praised Taiwan’s participation in the WHA. It was considered as a result of the improved relations between Taiwan and China. The reality was and still is that the entire setup is flawed and unsustainable because Taiwan’s annual invitation to the WHA is contingent on China’s approval.
A sustainable agreement with the WHO would have ensured Taiwan’s participation in the WHA no matter the government in Taipei. The lack of such an achievement is a failure of the KMT and of former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) which endangers Taiwan’s sovereignty.
Every spring the agreement ensures that China can show the international community that it controls Taiwan. This is one of the sad results of Ma’s “viable diplomacy,” and the so-called diplomatic truce and proactive diplomacy.
If the EU and others allow the policy to continue it promotes China’s attempts to integrate the international community into a Chinese system and not the other way around.
The EU can stop this from happening in the case of the WHA. The reason being that there is nothing in the EU’s “one China” policy against Taiwan obtaining full observer status as it does not require statehood. In addition, the EU has both the power and influence to ensure Taiwan gets a sustainable agreement.
Unfortunately, the EU has a historical track record of being strikingly quiet on Taiwan’s rights when relations between Taiwan and China are relative peaceful. Consequently, one could fear that the EU will be less motivated to act, despite the communication problems between Taiwan and China.
This is not an advocacy for Taiwan to make more noise or trouble to get attention, rather it should be an encouragement for the EU to start acting as a world leader and use this historical opportunity to make Taiwan’s agreement with the WHO sustainable.
Taiwan has participated in the WHA since 2009, why can this not continue?
It will be a major blow to the EU’s economic power, and its support for human rights and democracy if a sustainable solution is not found. Statements in favor of Taiwan are not sufficient. It should not end up in a typical EU fashion as when the EU criticized China earlier this year.
The nations of the EU wrote in a common statement that they were concerned about allegations of the torture of detained human rights activists in China. Later, Sweden, Germany, Britain and eight other nations issued a statement about growing concern over allegations of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatments or punishments in cases involving human rights activists in China.
However, leadership is not about statements alone, but also about taking the necessary actions that can change the world.
The quiet promotion of Taiwan’s right to participate in the WHA by its government shows that it is serious about friendly and stable relations with China. By allowing a sustainable agreement providing Taiwan full observer status, China could enhance it status in the world community.
Michael Danielsen is chairman of Taiwan Corner, a Danish non-governmental organization.
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