When US President Donald Trump pointed the finger at the WHO, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus did not face the music; instead, to distract from the mounting pressure, he groundlessly claimed that he was personally attacked by Taiwan with racial discrimination.
The outrageous accusation has stirred scads of uproar in vibrant Taiwanese society.
The backfire was presented as a full-page advertisement in the New York Times. After several hours, the WHO highlighted 13 points with misleading pieces of information to gainsay the ad.
Apparently, the WHO has spent time preparing to fight against the Taiwan issue, even though Taiwan had no intention to start a war in the first place.
When an NHK journalist raised a question about Taiwan at an international news conference, again, the pundits of the WHO showed how ready they were to retort questioning voices.
The WHO’s swift management on matters about Taiwan left many wondering why it could not have exhibited this kind of efficient executive ability when the COVID-19 pandemic was still in the nascent stage.
The WHO could have taken many measures if it were truly professional and politically neutral; unfortunately, they dropped the ball from the beginning.
It is natural for an international public organization to be supervised, especially in an era of pandemic, but when the onslaught of criticism flooded the WHO, the leader did not reflect on his dereliction of duty, but chose to evade the blame.
Tedros keeps professing the compassionate tenets of the WHO, but has already betrayed the core value of humanity. It is far beyond disappointing to witness the WHO so paralyzed in this pandemic.
He is actually not the scourge of the tragedy. He is just a symbolic figure who represents how one country’s infiltration can damage an essential organization that is supposed to be purely led by professional and objective judgements.
There are many like him losing political neutrality scattered throughout the WHO.
Together, the loss of political neutrality and China’s lack of transparency have contributed to this disaster, throwing the world into a suffering hell.
The WHO’s blindness to China likely hushing up the true pandemic status should be reflected on; as should the panels’ clouded and delayed guidance.
The relationship between China and the WHO should be scrutinized. It is crystal clear that this incompetent organization needs an overhaul.
For Taiwan, the upside is that the WHO is finally forced to officially communicate with it, which used to be taboo.
The WHO gathers worldwide medical elites and has an extraordinary foundation to do its work, but it spoiled the resources to bark up the wrong tree.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ statements from 2009 to last year show that Taiwan was allowed to attend only 30 percent of technical meetings and was rejected without reason from the rest; the regional office for the Western Pacific barely provides Taiwan any relevant health information; and the development of Taiwanese vaccines has been deterred because the WHO would not recognize them.
Taiwan’s situation is a far cry from comprehensive participation in the WHO. If someone claims that there is no need for Taiwan to have membership because China owns it and has taken good care of it, they must either be lying or have been fooled.
Taiwan is poised to be a part of the medical community. The WHO should make no mistake that a pandemic cannot isolate Taiwan from the world, but its political prejudice can.
It is a moment of reflection for the WHO and if it must spend some precious time going after a particular nation, Taiwan is the last one it should single out.
Janet Hung is a physical therapist.
Taiwan might just give up. That’s the argument Simon Shuster made in The Atlantic’s October issue. The US is unreliable, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leadership is aligned with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and Taiwan does not have the military capability to defend itself in a prolonged war without help. What hope does Taiwan have? Quite a bit more, in fact, than Shuster lets on. Shuster points to genuine problems. The first Donald Trump administration had a mostly positive record on Taiwan policy. It regularized the arms sales process, enhanced the military-to-military relationship, and treated Taiwan more like a normal
A Facebook post by Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) earlier this month achieved record levels of engagement — although perhaps inadvertently. In it, he attacked Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator and Taipei mayoral candidate Puma Shen (沈伯洋) for an op-ed published in 2014 discussing drug harm reduction policies. In attempting to stir up fear with talk of community centers, drugs and needles, Chiang’s comment section exploded. More than 100,000 comments poured in within the first two hours; more than 330,000 after the first 12; and more than 400,000 by noon the following day. Rather embarrassingly, many commenters made a point
Southeast Asian food delivery platform Grab Holdings Ltd in March applied to acquire Delivery Hero SE’s Foodpanda operations in Taiwan, with the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) scheduled to announce its decision on Oct. 27. On the surface, the deal is a business merger — but in substance, it involves personal data, national geospatial information and digital sovereignty. It cannot be assessed solely in terms of market share and price competition. Grab has extensive and long-standing connections to Chinese capital. In 2015, Chinese ride-hailing firm Didi Chuxing and China Investment Corp, a sovereign wealth fund, invested in Grab. Grab invested in Chinese autonomous-driving
With the Taipei mayoral election quickly heating up, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) campaign team has finally started to get serious this month, but a major mudslinging initiative and several sloppy mistakes have drawn a larger wave of public criticism, while sporadic municipal issues continue to crop up, raising concerns about whether the city government’s wheels are coming off. Just a few months ago, Chiang of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was widely expected to win handily in Taipei, traditionally a political stronghold for the KMT and with no major third-party candidates this year. KMT supporters regarded him as a frontrunner
RSS