The World Health Organization (WHO) is currently debating whether to include in the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) language that would extend those regulations to "independent health territories" such as Taiwan. If the proposal for such an amendment by Taiwan's allies such as the US, Nicaragua, and Paraguay is accepted, it would be a major step forward in Taiwan's long campaign to join the health organization.
The WHO members adopted the International Sanitary Regulations -- later renamed the IHR -- as early as 1951. The goal of the IHR is to prevent and minimize the spread of communicable diseases across borders, with the initial focus on cholera, yellow fever, smallpox, relapsing fever and typhus. The origin of the IHR can be traced all the way back to the early 1800s, when cholera epidemics swept Europe and led to the first International Sanitary Conference in 1851, one the earliest attempts at multilateral cooperation to control the spread of epidemics. Within the next five decades, several conventions on the spread of infectious disease across borders were negotiated.
The history of the IHR shows the dire need for international cooperation to control epidemics. This need has become even more acute with the rapid increase in international travel. No one country in its right mind can believe that it can slam the door on infectious diseases spreading through its borders from other parts of the world. No one country can shy away from its duty as a member of the globalized world to cooperate with other members in combating epidemics, regardless of where a disease originated. Nor can any country be complacent about the threat posed to its people's health by communicable diseases, when the helping hands of an international cooperative mechanism does not reach its borders.
Unfortunately, Taiwan to this day continues to be shut out of such a cooperative mechanism, despite the fact that it is in other ways a fully-participating member of the international community. The people of Taiwan continue to be deprived of the benefits of the WHO. Any government that allows this to happen to its people should be condemned. Except, of course, this did not happen to Taiwan by choice. Dispute the Taiwan government's earnest and prolonged effort, the malicious obstruction from the Chinese government -- which claims Taiwan is not a sovereign state and merely a Chinese province -- has persuaded the WHO to shut its doors to Taiwan.
Under the circumstances, it is of course not surprising that the amendment proposed by Taiwan's allies has met with strong Chinese objection. China cites as reasons for excluding Taiwan the fact that "territory" is not a legally recognized concept under public international law, that the WHO is an inter-governmental organization and that the IHR is a treaty between countries.
One cannot help but wonder, in a situation where people's health is concerned and lives are at stake, should priority instead be given to political and legal disputes? The truth is that the Chinese government does not effectively govern Taiwan and it cannot represent Taiwan on health-related issues. At the same time, Taiwan remains isolated, with no recourse to the WHO's health "safety net." If this situation is allowed to continue, the people of Taiwan and also people in other countries will be exposed to serious health threats.
It is true that the successful inclusion of the language proposed by Taiwan's allies into the amendments of the IHR will not give Taiwan WHO membership. However, it would give Taiwan critically-needed access to the international health safety net -- and that would be progress.
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Swiftly following the conclusion of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) China trip, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office unveiled 10 new policy measures for Taiwan. The measures, covering youth exchanges, agricultural and fishery imports, resumption of certain flights and cultural and media cooperation, appear to offer “incentives” for cross-strait engagement. However, viewed within the political context, their significance lies not in promoting exchanges but in redefining who is qualified to represent Taiwan in dialogue with China. First, the policy statement proposes a “normalized communication mechanism” between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This would shift cross-strait interaction from
RSS