Taiwan seems closer than ever to the gate of the World Health Organization (WHO). On the eve of the country's sixth attempt to gain observer status in the organization, major breakthroughs, primarily the passage of a European Parliament resolution and a US law endorsing Taiwan's bid, have raised the hopes of Taiwan's people. Unfortunately, debates over what name should be used in the bid has not been resolved. Unless a consensus is reached soon, Tai-wan has no chance of building the kind of internal momentum and unity required to push it over the finish line, thwarting what may be the best opportunity thus far for WHO entry.
Many people are apparently confusing two entirely different issues -- the name Taiwan should use and the status it should be seeking. Taking a pragmatic approach, Taiwan is currently seeking observer status, rather than full-fledged membership. After all, WHO membership is limited to sovereign states, while statehood is not required to gain observer status. Undeniably, as a sovereign state, Taiwan is eligible for membership -- but that it not a possibility, given China's opposition. Since the WHO is a UN agency, Taiwan's entry, even just as an observer, is enough to strike some hypersensitive nerves in China.
Under the circumstances, the practical thing to do is, of course, to get in first as an observer -- as a non-state entity -- much along the lines of Taiwan's WTO application. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is mulling applying as either a "public health entity" or a"public health territory." Both are viable options based on the precedent of Taiwan's membership in the WTO as the "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu."
Since Taiwan isn't seeking entry as a sovereign state, debate over whether to use the name ROC does not make sense. The only question left is what name should be used -- Taiwan, "Separate Public Health Entity/Territory of Taiwan" or "Separate Public Health Entity/Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu?"
It would be best if the bid could simply be under the name "Taiwan," given the efforts in recent years to create a sense of state identity based on that name and international recognition of the name. So long as Taiwan enters as a public health entity or territory, it should not be of any real legal significance that the words "public health entity/territory" aren't included in its title. But if the use of "Taiwan" alone faces too much opposition, then the other options are still viable.
However, some people may question the need to eliminate "Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu" from the proposed title. Quite simply the name "Taiwan" has come to mean a lot more than the just the name of an island. Therefore, by listing its name side-by-side with the names "Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu," Taiwan risks having its significance reduced to being a mere geographical name.
If Taiwan is to truly make it into the WHO, it must first learn to reduce internal division and disputes over issues that are secondary to the entry bid itself.
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
RSS