After accusing Taiwan of launching “personal attacks” and a “racist campaign” against him at a news conference on April 8, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus quickly stirred up another controversy over whether the WHO had ignored Taiwan’s warning at the end of last year about possible human-to-human transmission of the COVID-19 virus.
That dispute extended the battle of words between Tedros and Taiwan, with unexpected results.
It turned into a “battle of unequals” initiated by Tedros, but his display lacked meticulous tactical thinking and effective strategic adjustments. Taiwan used this to its advantage by highlighting the effects of its epidemic prevention efforts and successes.
It also allowed Taiwan to promote its “Taiwan can help” strategy, which has given the nation more visibility internationally than it has experienced in decades, while also focusing global attention on its outstanding epidemic prevention efforts.
All this has helped Taiwan create an international environment more conducive to once again opening the doors to the World Health Assembly (WHA).
How did Taiwan manage to turn the tide?
Tedros had already been the target of international criticism during the early stages of the pandemic following a series of pro-China statements, as well as a stream of misjudgements regarding the virus, including the denial of human-to-human transmission in a tweet posted by the WHO as late as Jan. 14.
Amid growing global criticism, Tedros was unable to take it anymore and launched a “counterattack” at a WHO news conference. Unfortunately, he made multiple mistakes that a successful strategist would avoid when planning a counterattack.
His attack was not only inaccurate, but also aimed at the wrong target, at the wrong time and the wrong place. In the end, he failed to achieve the result he hoped for and gave Taiwan a chance to turn the tide.
Tedros’ verbal assault against Taiwan failed for several reasons.
First, his accusations were unfounded. Any kind of counterattack requires fundamental evidence to be effective, but Tedros only said that “abuses, or racist comments, giving me names, black or Negro” came from Taiwan without presenting any concrete evidence.
Second, Tedros made the remarks at the wrong place, opening himself up to questions about the distinction between public and private spheres, and using public resources for personal purposes.
He inappropriately chose the organization’s routine public news briefing to disclose personal attacks as if he were suffering from injustice and humiliation. This created the impression that he lacks the demeanor a leader responsible for administering international affairs should possess.
Third, Tedros’ timing was bad. As the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the world and had an increasingly severe effect on Europe and the US throughout March, discontent with his misjudgement was increasing worldwide.
When Tedros was criticizing Taiwan, an online petition calling for his resignation — which was not organized by Taiwan — had already been endorsed by 750,000 people worldwide. It was foreseeable that Tedros was unlikely to gain widespread public support for his counterattack given these unfavorable circumstances.
Fourth, Tedros chose the wrong target. He did not strike at a particular individual or a certain group, nor was his target very concrete. Rather, Tedros directed his attacks at Taiwan, a political entity, with a very general accusation — “racial discrimination.”
The attack came from Tedros, a single person, and was directed at a whole society. Given the lack of evidence, it was not very difficult to see that his attack would result in a massive counterattack.
As expected, Tedros’ accusations drew fierce criticism from what seemed to be all of Taiwanese society.
Not only did Tedros’ accusations result in a rare joint counterattack from Taiwan’s two major political parties — the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) — Taiwanese students at home and abroad joined the protest against his “untruthful accusations.”
Taiwan is riding the wave of its successful disease prevention efforts, and the nation’s medical and innovative capabilities have been widely recognized and acknowledged internationally.
The DPP administration also took the rare opportunity to promote the “Taiwan can help” campaign to highlight the nation’s presence, and enhance its global visibility by engaging in exchanges and cooperation with the international community.
Apart from the government’s protest and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ demand that Tedros apologize, a crowdfunding campaign raised enough money to run an ad in the New York Times on April 14. It grabbed the greatest attention of the Taiwanese counterattacks against Tedros.
The ad, which was designed as a letter written by Taiwanese to the world, delivered the message “WHO can help? Taiwan,” and said: “In a time of isolation, we choose solidarity.”
Meanwhile, real racial discrimination against Africans occurred in Guangzhou, China, the nation that supports Tedros most strongly.
Several Africans who had not been diagnosed with COVID-19 said that they were placed under arbitrary quarantine or had their passports confiscated by local authorities, and some of them were even evicted from their homes and turned away by hotels.
As a result, many African nations either summoned their Chinese ambassadors or wrote to Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) to express their concern and ask for an explanation.
Taiwan is widely acknowledged as a foreigner-friendly society. Although cross-strait relations have long been far from ideal, most Chinese students and tourists who have had the chance to visit the nation have been positive about its friendliness and politeness.
Perhaps Tedros, who had been under great pressure from the global public, recklessly vented his anger at Taiwan because he thought the backlash would be rather small, given that Taiwan lacks international status, is not acknowledged as a sovereign state by the UN and is not a member of the WHO.
As it turned out, his attack backfired. Tedros’ choice to criticize Taiwan paradoxically focused more international attention on Taiwan’s exclusion from the WHO.
European countries, the US and Japan have voiced support for Taiwan’s participation as an observer at the WHA annual meeting from Sunday next week to May 21. While the issue of Taiwan’s participation eventually rests with Beijing’s attitude, the nation has successfully highlighted its international isolation — caused by Beijing’s claims of sovereignty over Taiwan — and garnered more international support.
From this perspective, Taiwan has won a landslide victory in the accidental dispute provoked by the WHO chief.
John Lim has a doctorate in law from the University of Tokyo and is a former associate research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of Modern History.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming.
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his
Retired army major general Yu Pei-chen (于北辰), a former head the Taoyuan chapter of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) veterans branch, on Wednesday last week said that chapter head Tsang You-hsia (臧幼俠) — who dismissed Yu from his position — “would rather see cross-strait unification than yield to the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] government.” The statement ignited public debate, as it was the first time that a retired officer loyal to the nation — and the KMT — said out loud what has long been rumored among the public: Some KMT members would rather work with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)