Japanese media on Sunday last week reported on speculation that the US and Taiwan might discuss establishing a new international health organization, which the Taiwanese government has denied. If true, the rumors would indicate that the US — which initiated an exit from the WHO on July 7 — was looking to replace the functions of the WHO and seeking partners to join the new group.
If such talks are not taking place, they should be. The WHO was formed in 1948 after discussions with delegations from the Republic of China (ROC), Norway and Brazil with the goal of “the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health.” When the ROC on Oct. 25, 1971, was expelled from the UN, the People’s Republic of China also took its place in the WHO.
Unlike Taiwan, which participated in the WHO to improve health conditions in countries left devastated in the wake of World War II, China has historically used international organizations like the WHO to expand its influence — which is “simply what authoritarian regimes do,” as Bloomberg wrote on April 9.
The Bloomberg article argued that China should remain in the WHO, since “most new infectious diseases begin somewhere in China,” and the world needs access to information about those illnesses and needs to help China combat them to curb their spread.
The piece highlighted the dangerous aspects in China’s response to outbreaks. It took two months after the 2003 SARS outbreak for the WHO to allow doctors into China, and in June it was reported that China had withheld information about COVID-19 in the early stages of the outbreak, allowing its spread to disastrous proportions. There have also been speculations around the deaths of whistle-blowers in China who attempted to report on the threat of COVID-19, suggesting they were silenced by the government.
This too is simply what authoritarian regimes do.
Taiwan is a global health leader, as demonstrated by its effective handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, and affirmed by US Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar’s visit to Taipei earlier this week, during which he praised the nation’s health achievements and its aid to other countries.
Taiwan benefited greatly from the WHO during its two decades as a member, when the US and the UN set up milk stations for undernourished children in Taiwan and helped it fight devastating illnesses such as blackfoot disease and malaria. Taiwan has since turned the tables on infectious diseases, and today provides humanitarian aid to disadvantaged countries through the International Cooperation and Development Fund.
Whereas the US Seventh Fleet had previously trained Taiwanese doctors through its prestigious Naval Medical Research Unit Two, which was once based on the National Taiwan University campus, Taiwan now sends its medical professionals abroad to train doctors.
The benefits of cooperating with Taiwan on medical research and preventive medicine cannot be overstated. Yet, Chinese influence over the WHO continues to prevent Taiwan’s meaningful participation in the organization.
The US does not need to leave the WHO — a decision that can be reversed before July 6 next year — but establishing an organization in which Taiwan can participate, and in which no individual nation can obstruct other members’ participation, would benefit world health. The US could make clear to Beijing that a new organization is not intended as a vindictive move — and China could join if it wished — but it must also make clear that the organization would give precedence to health over politics.
The WHO is a political monstrosity with directors-general, decisionmaking committees, a huge headquarters and a massive annual travel budget. What the world really needs from a global health organization is meetings of like-minded, health-focused medical professionals who can meet regularly to share ideas and solve problems — not create them.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS