社會觀察 . 獨立評論 . 多元觀點 . 公共書寫 . 世代翻轉

  • Home
  • English
  • 評論
  • 民意
  • 時事
  • 生活
  • 國際
  • 歷史
  • 世代
  • 轉載
  • 投稿須知

WHO – better health for everyone everywhere except Taiwan

  • English Article
  • 時事
  • 民意
  • 評論

Surely the existential threat posed by disease is sufficient reason to include Taiwan in the WHA. A change in mindset is needed to make the WHO into the inclusive organization it claims to be.

The World Health Assembly (WHA), the decision-making body of the World Health Organization (WHO), meets 20–28 May in Geneva. Although the WHO promises “better health for everyone, everywhere,” the organization systematically excludes one country from the annual discussions. Taiwan, officially known as the Republic of China (ROC), has one of the world’s best medical systems and can make important scientific contributions. Yet, Taiwan is not permitted to send a delegation to WHA meetings, even with observer status, to share knowledge about urgent health threats.

WHO needs Taiwan. Photo source: CivilMedia.tw
WHO needs Taiwan. Photo source: CivilMedia.tw

This situation, like that at all United Nations (UN) venues, is a relic of the Cold War when two governments disputed which could legitimately represent China. Of course, only the People’s Republic of China (PRC) can represent the 1.386 billion people living within its jurisdiction. But what about the 23 million people who live on independently ruled Taiwan, with its Ministry of Health and Welfare entirely under Taiwanese control? What about the entire ecology of microorganisms that spread disease across borders with no regard for political disputes?

The Challenge of Preventing Pandemics

Since viruses know no boundaries and do not discriminate between citizenries, the exclusion of Taiwan is an important gap in the global health system. Taiwan learned this lesson quite painfully in 2003 when an epidemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) took 181 lives (27%) out of 668 confirmed cases.

In retrospect, public health experts understood that one obstacle was that Taiwan is not part of the WHO and thus could not access needed epidemiological data and virus samples in a timely fashion. Taiwanese medical professionals, excluded from face-to-face WHO meetings, had to rely on the WHO website and ask other countries (especially the USA) to share data. From 2009 to 2016, Taiwan was permitted to attend the WHA as an observer under the name Chinese Taipei. Since 2017, however, China has taken a hardline stance against Taiwan and blocked its participation.

Nowadays, the greatest threats seem to be zoonotic influenza viruses — viruses that first infect animals and then spread into human populations. Avian influenza, which affects poultry but could potentially mutate and infect humans, has appeared in two strains in Taiwan since 2003. In 2019, the main concerns are Hog cholera and African swine fever. Taiwan takes all possible measures to avoid a pandemic outbreak, including using automated sensors to test incoming air passengers for fevers and strictly enforcing laws on illegally importing meat. To be fully successful, such efforts need the international co-operation that only the WHO can provide.

Democratic Allies Support Taiwan

Political leaders from democratic countries are beginning to express concern about this situation and show support for Taiwanese participation. In 2018, the European Parliament passed a resolution saying that the exclusion of Taiwan from the WHO is not in line with EU interests. On 9 April this year, when questioned by the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade about Taiwan’s participation in the WHA, Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland replied that Canada supports Taiwan’s “participation in international multilateral fora where its presence provides important contributions to the global public good.”

Diplomats tasked with maintaining good relations with China, while supporting Taiwan’s bids for international space, make diplomatic somersaults to plead their case. In his remarks at the 40thanniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, for example, US Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State W. Patrick Murphy reiterated the long-standing American policy:

“The United States will continue to support Taiwan’s membership in international organizations where statehood is not a requirement for membership, and its meaningful participation in international organizations where statehood is a requirement

Statehood is the Issue

Pretending that there is no independent state on Taiwan overlooks the facts that Taiwan possesses a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. In fact, having all of these characteristics make it a state according to the definition of the 1933 Montevideo Convention.

Technically, Taiwan is not a state, but the ROC is. Taiwan as a society is still debating whether they should maintain the ROC, a constitutional framework that might one day enable the emergence of a larger democratic China. Beijing is impatient with Taiwan’s boisterous democracy, which means that no elected government has moved too quickly toward either independence or unification for fear of alienating voters and losing power. China thus tries to coerce Taiwan through external means, such as vetoing Taiwan’s attempts to enter the WHA.

The refusal of the WHA and other international bodies to recognize ROC statehood has two important consequences. The first is in Taiwan itself. As China succeeds in constraining Taiwan’s international space, Taiwanese people lose confidence in their government to represent them to the world. This destabilizes Taiwan’s hard-won democracy. The second consequence is that diplomats and political leaders learn to perceive Taiwan only in its relationship with China rather than as an independent sociopolitical reality.

Denying the existence of a state on Taiwan begs the question of what Taiwan actually is. Obviously, it is not a non-governmental organization like the Red Cross, which has observer status. Taiwan’s contested status in the international arena more closely resembles Palestine, which has held observer status in the WHA since 1974 and in the UN since 2012, but which is excluded from other international entities due to American opposition. Both Taiwan and Palestine are limited in their international aspirations due to great power politics, but only Palestine gains a seat at the table at the WHA. Taiwan should be no different in terms of prioritizing human health over politics.

Taiwan is already a part of several other international organizations, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum. These provide sufficient precedents for pragmatically including both the PRC and the ROC. Surely the existential threat posed by disease is sufficient reason to include Taiwan in the WHA. A change in mindset is needed to make the WHO into the inclusive organization it claims to be.

Author / Scott Simon

Scott Simon, Ph.D., is Professor in the School of Sociological and Anthropological Studies, Co-holder of the Chair in Taiwan Studies, and Researcher at CIPS, University of Ottawa. Proficient in both Mandarin Chinese and Japanese, he has conducted research on various social and political issues in China, Taiwan, and Japan. He is the author of three books about Taiwan.

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • More
  • Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn

Related

Taiwan WHO 國際
2019-05-22 Scott Simon

Post navigation

看郭董「舔盤子」拚形象改造 → ← 賴清德如果想退,現在是良機

Related Posts

從「你抓我啊」到真的被抓 : 當媒體不再中立之時

        如果政治是劇場,新聞是佈景,那麼這起被稱為「馬德案」的國安爭議,無疑是一場讓觀眾同時感到荒謬與不安的現代戲碼。曾經在鏡頭前以戲謔語氣挑釁「你抓我啊」的媒體人,如今真的因涉嫌違反《國家安全法》而遭羈押禁見,這種近乎寓言式的反轉,迅速成為社群輿論的素材,也把一個本該嚴肅的國安議題,推進到諷刺與質疑交錯的公共討論場域。        就目前官方已公開的資訊而言,司法機關的行動並不複雜,檢調掌握線索後發動搜索,認為相關行為涉及對岸人士與現役或退役軍人之間的金錢與資訊往來,因而依國安法等罪嫌偵辦並聲請羈押。法院裁定羈押禁見,案件仍在偵查階段,細節依法未對外說明。從程序角度看,這是一個標準的刑事偵查流程;但從政治與社會層面看,它卻像一塊投入水面的石頭,激起的漣漪遠遠超過案件本身。         近年來,無論是學理還是政策實務,都已不再將國家安全理解為單純的軍事衝突,而是涵蓋資訊戰、影響力操作與社會工程等「灰色地帶行動」。在這套理論架構下,媒體、輿論、乃至個人言行,都可能被重新詮釋為戰場的一部分。正是在這樣的背景下,社會反應呈現高度撕裂。一方面,有人拍手稱快,將此案視為對長期「親中言論」的現世報,甚至以黑色幽默的方式嘲諷當事人「言出必行」。這類反應反映的是一種集體焦慮的宣洩,即在中國對台壓力持續升高的情勢下,任何被貼上「可能協助滲透」標籤的人,都容易成為情緒出口。另一方面,也有不少聲音質疑,若國安法的適用與案件說明不足透明,是否會讓新聞工作者在未來報導時更傾向自我審查,讓寒蟬效應悄然擴散。        從法治國原則來看,民主制度本就建立在一個看似矛盾的基礎上;既要保障言論與新聞自由,又要防範外力利用這些自由來傷害體制本身。理論上,答案是程序正義與比例原則;現實中,答案卻往往取決於政治氛圍與社會信任度。當政府強調依法偵辦、反滲透有其必要性時,人民期待的不只是「相信司法」,而是能看到足以支撐這種信任的說明與節制。否則,國安話語很容易被誤解為政治立場的延伸,而非中立的法律工具。         諷刺的是,這起案件之所以引發如此高度的象徵意義,恰恰因為事件牽涉到媒體。媒體本應是監督權力、揭露真相的角色,如今卻成為被國安敘事檢視的對象,彷彿舞台燈光突然轉向觀眾席。當記者不再只是報導者,而可能被視為風險因子,整個公共討論空間的信任結構也隨之動搖。這並不意味著媒體人享有豁免權,而是意味著每一次國安偵辦,都必須更加謹慎地處理其象徵效果。       若滲透戰是一場無聲的長期戰爭,那麼民主社會最怕的,從來不是防守,而是因過度緊張而誤傷自己。當嘲諷成為主旋律、立場先於事實,國安議題就容易從理性防衛滑向情緒動員。到頭來,真正被侵蝕的,可能不是哪一項軍事機密,而是社會對法治與自由的共同信念。「馬德案」究竟會走向何種司法結論,仍有待時間驗證。但可以確定的是,其已經成為一面鏡子,照出台灣在國安與自由之間的猶豫與不安。若這齣戲有任何值得記取的教訓,那或許不是「誰該被抓」,而是在下一次危機來臨時,我們是否還能分清防衛與恐慌、正義與報復之間,那條本就不寬敞的界線。 作者 / 風林火山

如何看美歐在格陵蘭的對峙

  美國總統川普在回任之後,時常表露將格陵蘭納入美國領土的執念,在近日傳出美國可能在不顧丹麥(格陵蘭宗主國)及歐盟同意之下,強制推進將格陵蘭納入美國領土的構想,引發丹麥、英國、法國、德國等八個歐洲國家共同組成小規模聯合部隊進駐格陵蘭;川普隨即宣布從2月1日起,對參與聯合部隊的丹麥、英國、法國、瑞典、德國、荷蘭、芬蘭和挪威加收10%關稅,如果6月1日前仍然未達成格陵蘭協議就加到25%,而歐盟則考慮採取同樣的報復性關稅回敬,歐洲國家將川普政府的作為視為試圖以脅迫方式併吞丹麥領土,目前這場僵局仍然在持續當中。   不少國際觀察人士認為,美國若強行接管格陵蘭,將意味著北約終結。一名歐洲國家高層官員跟媒體坦言:「這是自伊拉克戰爭以來,我們所見過最嚴重的美歐跨大西洋裂痕,而這一切竟然是因為一座大多數歐洲人原本以為永遠不可能被觸碰的島嶼(指格陵蘭)」。   美國總統川普之所以著眼在格陵蘭,並不是所謂增加領土那麼簡單,而是考量到在未來北冰洋航運線成為世界貿易新動脈時,格陵蘭的戰略位置有助於美國在應對中國、俄國的地緣競爭,再者,格陵蘭潛藏的豐富資源如石油、天然氣和稀土都有著巨大的商業價值。   然而,川普在爭取格陵蘭的動作過於急躁、粗糙,激起丹麥以及多數歐洲國家的反彈,即使是想要脫離丹麥獨立的格陵蘭當地民意也對加入美國多抱持疑慮,更重要的是美國主流民意絕大多數都不支持川普爭取將格陵蘭納入美國領土的主張,最新民調顯示,只有17%的美國民眾贊成收購格陵蘭,絕大多數民主黨和共和黨支持者都反對動用軍事力量將格陵蘭納入美國領土。   再者,美國跟歐盟因為格陵蘭爭議的對立,可能會影響往後的合作關係,不只是動搖北約,更會給中國、俄國等敵對勢力見縫插針分化的隱憂。往後美國在因應俄國、伊朗、中國等地緣政治威脅時,就無法爭取過往的歐洲傳統盟友給予支持,對於美國長遠的戰略來說是不利的。   美歐在格陵蘭的對峙倘若深陷長期化、白熱化,對於西方乃至於自由世界是非常值得擔憂的內耗,台灣應該密切關注這個地緣政治事件的發展,並思考如何作好未雨綢繆的準備。 作者:洄瀾客

地方財政的隱憂 營養午餐全面免費的挑戰

台北市長蔣萬安宣布國中小營養午餐全面免費,隨後台中、高雄、基隆等縣市陸續表態跟進,使這項原本屬於地方教育政策的決定,很快演變為全國性的政治與輿論議題。在這波「跟或不跟」的比較之中,台南市長黃偉哲選擇先按兵不動,反而成為外界關注與質疑的焦點。然而,若從人口結構與地方財政的長期趨勢來看,這樣的遲疑,並非不願面對政策調整,而更像是一個值得納入公共討論的制度性警訊。 黃偉哲指出,若營養午餐全面免費,台南市每年將增加動輒十多億元的經常性支出。這樣的顧慮,放在當前台灣的人口趨勢下,並非草率決策。自二○二○年起,台灣已連續多年出現出生人口低於死亡人口的「生不如死」現象,人口負成長已成結構性常態;二○二五年,台灣也已正式邁入「超高齡社會」,其速度之快,在全球主要國家中罕見。 人口快速老化,對地方政府而言,不僅是「學生人數逐年下降」的問題,更是高齡化對公共政策與地方財政的實質壓力。高齡人口增加,醫療、長照、社會照顧等支出將持續擴張;與此同時,就業人口縮減、勞動參與率下降,納稅來源也隨之銳減。支出上升、收入受限,將成為地方財政長期面臨的挑戰。 在這樣的背景下,任何新增的經常性支出都必須謹慎評估。營養午餐若全面免費,便意味著這筆支出被制度化、常態化,未來即使財政情勢惡化,也難以退場或調整。它不再只是單一年度的補助措施,而是對未來數十年財政承擔能力的提前預支。問題不在於營養午餐是否重要,而在於地方政府是否仍保有足夠的政策彈性,以應對人口與財政雙重挑戰。 值得注意的是,這場政策競逐,往往被簡化為「誰比較照顧孩子」,卻忽略了各縣市財政結構與人口條件的差異。對財政條件較佳的直轄市而言,短期吸收相關支出或許可行;但對財政自給率偏低、面臨高齡化壓力較重的縣市而言,倉促跟進,反而可能壓縮其他更迫切的公共支出空間。 從這個角度看,地方首長選擇先評估財政承載能力,而非立即加入政策表態,並不等同忽視學童需求,而是在高度不確定的未來中,為地方財政保留最低限度的調整空間。這樣的判斷,指向的其實是台灣整體將面對的人口危機,而非單一縣市或單一政策的政治攻防。 真正值得社會深思的,並非「哪個縣市有沒有免費營養午餐」,而是當人口快速老化、財政壓力全面升高時,我們是否已建立起兼顧福利需求與財政永續的制度設計。否則,當前看似受民眾支持的政策比拚,明天都可能成為地方政府難以承受的結構性負擔。 作者:魏世昌

補助私校營養午餐公義在哪?

台北市長蔣萬安日前宣布,北市國中小將全面推行營養午餐免費,且強調不排富、公私立皆補助,此舉引發批評。眾所周知,北市私校學費高昂,一年動輒幾十萬,家長何須倚靠政府補助營養午餐費?對此,藍營議員意見分歧,議員秦慧珠認為應排富,議員詹為元則稱不希望標籤化。 有趣的是,蔣萬安為北市私立復興國小校友,二○二四年還獲頒傑出校友榮譽,不知蔣萬安感受到何種標籤?筆者也是校友、也出國唸書當小留學生,在前行政院長蘇貞昌推行「班班有冷氣」以前,還真沒注意公立學校沒冷氣這件事。若有標籤,也是社會羨慕、嫉妒的標籤。 學校位處蛋黃區,同學多住在步行就能到校的範圍,旁邊百貨公司下午多的是帶子女逛街、吃飯、喝下午茶的媽媽們,下課接送最多的是家庭幫傭,還有豪車。或也有家長認為私校負擔重,政府有補助最好,但讀私校是選擇,不是必須。政府預算應應用在彌補社會差距,若公私立學校都補助,國中小差距能拉近? 依今年教育局私立國中小每學期雜費核定上限約六萬元,不含特色課程等其他開銷,若計入一學期近十萬,整年約二十萬,顯然非多數家庭能負擔,政府補助一年不到二萬元的營養午餐費。誇張點說,這點費用只是媽媽們的下午茶補貼。 目前北市公立學校餐費,因行政區、學校不同而有落差,有如萬華區低僅六○元,高如大安區達七十五元。若有空點開校園食材登錄平台查看,一分錢一分貨,要說沒差距是自欺欺人,有學校能提供切好的水果,有學校固定幾樣整顆塞給學童,政府促進學童飲食均衡的美意「有但剩不多」。 攤開六都營養午餐經費國中小一餐約五十至七十五元,六都外還有低於五十元的預算。能吃到什麼?大家心裡有數。現行中央補助方法,是在基本餐費上另外補助。鼓勵業者使用有機蔬菜、國產肉類標章食材。外界不知道的是,礙於成本考量這類好食材是按次計算,而非每一餐,頻率低的甚至是每學期一次。 坦白講,選票是政客的緊箍咒,若稍有政治良心就該堅守只補助公立,不補助私立的最後底線。免費的有誰不愛,但沒付錢的背後,是讓學童付出代價,營養午餐品質低落,是不只一代人的生活經驗,還要持續多久?就看政府的決心與智慧。 作者:陳建志

Recent Posts

從「你抓我啊」到真的被抓 : 當媒體不再中立之時

從「你抓我啊」到真的被抓 : 當媒體不再中立之時

        如果政治是劇場,新聞是佈景,那麼這起被稱為「馬德案」的國安爭議,無疑是一場讓觀眾同時感到荒謬與不安的現代戲碼。曾經在鏡頭前以戲謔語氣挑釁「你抓我啊」的媒體人,如今真的因涉嫌違反《國家安全法》而遭羈押禁見,這種近乎寓言式的反轉,迅速成為社群輿論的素材,也把一個本該嚴肅的國安議題,推進到諷刺與質疑交錯的公共討論場域。       [...]

More Info
如何看美歐在格陵蘭的對峙

如何看美歐在格陵蘭的對峙

  [...]

More Info
地方財政的隱憂 營養午餐全面免費的挑戰

地方財政的隱憂 營養午餐全面免費的挑戰

台北市長蔣萬安宣布國中小營養午餐全面免費,隨後台中、高雄、基隆等縣市陸續表態跟進,使這項原本屬於地方教育政策的決定,很快演變為全國性的政治與輿論議題。在這波「跟或不跟」的比較之中,台南市長黃偉哲選擇先按兵不動,反而成為外界關注與質疑的焦點。然而,若從人口結構與地方財政的長期趨勢來看,這樣的遲疑,並非不願面對政策調整,而更像是一個值得納入公共討論的制度性警訊。 [...]

More Info
補助私校營養午餐公義在哪?

補助私校營養午餐公義在哪?

台北市長蔣萬安日前宣布,北市國中小將全面推行營養午餐免費,且強調不排富、公私立皆補助,此舉引發批評。眾所周知,北市私校學費高昂,一年動輒幾十萬,家長何須倚靠政府補助營養午餐費?對此,藍營議員意見分歧,議員秦慧珠認為應排富,議員詹為元則稱不希望標籤化。 [...]

More Info

搜尋

精選文章

川習會的中美矛盾是戰略,不是貿易!

2017-04-08 韓非

八仙樂園爆炸案:缺乏常識造成的災難

2015-06-28 異想

彰化縣民輪替後的哀與愁

2016-03-06 許家瑋

新文明病:儲物症(Hoarding disorder)似正在增加

2015-04-13 楊庸一

訂閱本站

輸入你的電子郵件訂閱新文章並接收新通知。

Powered by WordPress | theme Dream Way
Powered by WordPress | theme Dream Way