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

台灣人的「民格」是一萬元就可以收買的嗎 ?

戔戔一萬元,就可以收攬民心,為非作歹:可以摧毀行政權和立法權的分際、平衡,可以令控制立法權的邪惡集團,毫無牽制,民粹當頭,無所不用其極。 除了極權國家,有任何民主國家,立法權要立甚麼法,就有甚麼法;要甚麼預算,就有甚麼預算。行政權只能唯唯諾諾,一呼百應。 立法權不只可以審察預算,更可以創造預算,無所不能:原來人民是可以收買的,那麼為甚麼不能這樣做而壯大自己,可以令異己者膽顫心驚,棄甲曳兵,你們知道了嗎?立法院才是真正的太上政府。 這就是薄涼憤世犬儒之徒所樂為,陰險冷漠的算計,卻慈眉善目,滿心歡喜的宣揚:我們是為你們人民利益著想,居心叵測掩蓋襲奪非法憲政權力的陰謀企圖。以簡單易見的利益,敗壞無知、輕信的善良百姓之「民格」:利用其不知國家體制有「大小之分」、「輕重之別」,藉此謀取非法的政治權力,動搖憲政綱紀,明知而故犯,更可標顯此輩內心真正邪悪的本質。 權力平衡、憲政的約制被毀。「立法專制」或甚至「立法極權」,憲政權力平衡機制被毀的後患:小如街頭羣眾的「造反有理」,打家劫舍;其大可以如法國大革命時「革命議會」,主管「安全」的革命委員會,在清理議會外的「反革命力量」後,轉向議會內,可以隨時把議會頭頭,例如;權力聲望,類如今日「黃國昌」者,只要陰謀者得到足夠「票數」,可以晴天霹靂,議會當場當下,就可送其上斷頭台。 人人因而自危,爾虞我詐,隨時準備陰謀險招,先下手為強,惟恐措手不及,為看不見的敵人所乘 !某個大國在文化大革命期間,不是有同樣的陰謀充斥的暗黑恐怖時代 ! 血污的萬元不只暗藏病毒,更可能是不自覺的,把國家出售給邪𩆜的「賣身契」。台灣人民的「民格」一被敗壞,甚麼樣的人民就會有甚麼様的國家 ,必然成真!你我若擔心台灣會如此淪落,新進的民團更要起來接力,要在「大罷免大成功」的號召下,肝膽相照,努力向前 !給邪悪集團,當頭棒喝 ! 或許「萬元黨」根本不會在意!他們背後的巨靈不是說過「留島不留人」嗎 ?十四億人來決定和改造二千三百萬人該想甚麼,如何做個溫順,逆來順受的「公民」,不會太困難吧? 「命運」可以用一萬元來換取,真是太便宜的好交易!有人還會興高采烈的在數鈔票!藍營的武術大亨、禁軍總教頭的陳某人,你說是嗎 ? 你的同路人:「愛國的」藝人、名嘴、直播主、蛋頭學者、自行標榜的「百分之一」精英、以及小草軍們,一有事變,一定「義無反顧」,簞食壺漿,以迎「王師」,陳教頭相信嗎?—— 你相信台灣人民的「民格」會淪落到如此亷價?只要一萬元 !果真如此,收買只需要二千三百萬元台幣,太多「愛國的」台商都出得起,誰需要你以及你的同志們,風塵僕僕,兩岸穿梭,「愛國」不落人後的努力 ! 作者:顧憲同

從大罷免看藍白政治雙標:想扁時代那些亂事兒….

當某些人評論一個人或一件事,所採取的審查標準,如因人因行而異其標準,網路上往往形容成「雙標仔」,該詞是略帶貶意。縱容這種浮動的評價標準,容易使既定的社會價值混亂,無論我們怎麼做都會引來無由的批評。最近,藍白為反大罷免幾乎走向一體化關係,將執政黨相關人事物無不放大檢驗,他們反擊的口實缺常被自己跨時空打臉。    當瘋狂的柯粉揚言刺殺檢察官時,似乎忘記當年國親連線如何霸凌一樣是朝小野大的扁政府。阿扁執政中後期是藍綠惡鬥最混亂之際,後來被柯文哲用來行銷,成為打倒藍綠高牆的藉口。當年國民黨主席連戰對阿扁的政治攻擊絕對超過如今。例如,阿扁槍擊事件後,除了抹黑造假外,甚至煽動群眾暴動,更有人揚言將對總統不利,竟曰總統「人人得而誅之」。其次,更鼓勵軍警政變來推翻扁政府,試問這種言論是否觸法想必人民心中自有答案。至2007年,因扁家弊案曾出不窮,使國親等在野黨更有底氣,一方面在國會無理由杯葛議事;一方面與紅衫軍分進合擊,在首都從遊行轉成擾亂社會秩序的群眾暴力,昔日的紅衫軍作為國民黨馬前卒關係,是否與今日鼓吹柯暴動有歷史重現的感覺?     以上到了馬政府時代,國會、地方掌握優勢,當然事事任我行,尤其在施政不力及兩岸問題上,終於爆發太陽花學運。學運期間,政府在追殺民團及學生上,無論司法上大起訴或出動鎮暴警察皆不顧手段比例,釀成隔年選舉大敗,間接造成柯文哲崛起。眼前,無論是藍白人士皆有官司纏身,大多是歸於自己不守法緣故,除了柯文哲案外,幽靈連署明顯自掘墳墓,卻怪執政黨追殺,莫非當時執政時期也是一樣邏輯追殺在野黨,否則怎有宛如膝跳反應的聯想?莫忘,當年小草之神正是收割太陽花果實而來,眼下與當年迫害者結盟,令人不勝唏噓。    藍白的政治雙標體現在方方面面,自己永遠潔白如聖人,如果被抓到瑕疵,第一招說對方跟自己一樣,第二招說自己被司法迫害,第三招即是最惡劣的,用國會法案教訓執政黨特定人物,只要在手段上達到抹黑,反正在信徒眼中會解釋成「正義式的報復」,所以朝野對立無止無休。      隨著726進入倒數,任何光怪陸離的事情接踵而至,尤其塑造在野黨遭執政黨不遺餘力;更甚者,某「網紅化」的政客透過直播,企圖鼓吹更多年輕人投票,各黨走到現在顯然進入緊張動員,不顧立院烏龍提案,一味給賴政府難堪作為原則。當然,一切都是衝流量,演戲給選民欣賞,只有有反綠反賴群眾在,就有他們狂舞的舞台。故,與其期待政客收斂,不如思考如何影響民眾,不能互相仇視立場不同者,國家陷入內亂得利者永遠是外敵或利用仇恨上位者,如同那位被稱作「呂布」的梟雄,不知是貶意還是褒獎,想必民眾心中自有衡量的尺度。然其所以成為政壇不死鳥,正因觀眾懷有對不同立場群眾有恨意,他才有頻繁跳槽的本錢,對他而言換黨只是換顏色,終究煽動人民對政府仇恨自己方有上位機會。  作者 / 劍藏鋒

國民黨搶當北京代理人?論黨國權貴對台灣的私利與忠誠

日前,前外交部長、國安會秘書長李大維新書提到,美國退休情報人士曾訪台告知,蔡英文總統在2016年就職時,就職演說原獲得北京智庫人士好評,卻遇到國民黨前官員致電後,轉為未答完的答案卷。言下之意,國民黨欲爭奪北京對台窗口的唯一代理人,以此繼續賺取紅色紅利。然而,像這樣的案例,從李登輝政府時期就開始,甚至馬政府時代,蘇起還以就職演說為例,暗示國民黨前高層對北京的聯繫之爭。令人難以接受的是,國民黨此舉完全將個人利益、黨派利益凌駕於國家利益之上,爭相向北京諂媚不惜出賣台灣。 李大維新書《和光同塵:一位外交官的省思》提到,北京原有意接受蔡總統的就職演說,「但我方數名前政治人物基於私利,竟電告北京當局不應該接受」。這件事近日成為各方矚目的焦點,外界相當訝異國民黨的前朝人物,竟會希望中國不與台灣接觸。但事實上,國民黨類似的案例,也不是第一次,早在1990年代,兩岸交流剛剛開放常態化,就已經開始。前國安會副秘書長張榮豐的著作也曾提到,在那個年代密使滿天飛,甚至還有人跑到北京去告李登輝的狀,希望中共能夠嚴懲台灣,完全置國家利益於不顧,心中毫無國家,只有私人情緒利益,這樣的人在國民黨失去政權後,更加變本加厲,而代表人物當屬前國民黨主席連戰。 在蘇起2014年所出版的書《兩岸波濤二十年紀實》,其中就有段落提到,2008年馬英九就職前夕,蘇起內定出任國安會秘書長而到連戰家中請益,並報告之後馬英九的就職演說,但他注意到連戰動作的不尋常,並在書中表示:「他聆聽了以後立即取出紙筆,要我一字一句再唸一遍,他則逐字手抄,足足花了大半天才全部抄錄完畢。當時我就想,再過兩天就會全文公佈,為什麼還要如此費事?」蘇起表示:「一個念頭閃過,但不敢再想下去。」蘇起認為,連戰後續為了持續搭建連胡會談,甚至於連習會談,必須要取信於北京,並能夠傳達權威訊息。 連戰也好,或是蔡英文政府時期的前國民黨官員,許多人都勤走兩岸同時,又兼領國家高額終生俸祿,以連戰為例,在年改時發現,他的月退加上18%共月領26萬元,等同現任院長的待遇。國家對於退休公務員,或是黨國時期因權而貴的特權階級,並未因為政黨輪替而有所歧視,該領的退休俸祿一毛未少,然而,這群人內心對於國家忠誠,對於台灣這塊土地的愛護,有無超出黨派、私人利益不禁令人懷疑。 中共當前面對的兩難處境是,若拒絕與民進黨交流,只單押國民黨,很可能永遠與台灣斷絕聯繫,對其統戰業務也有所不利。但若長期偏信國民黨,也注定將與台灣民意落差越遠,因此,現在看到如馬英九勤跑中國,獲得的待遇可能比省書記還要低下,甚至行程還被迫要去瞻仰習近平的愛國事蹟,都可看到中共對於國民黨政客的嫌惡感。國民黨若對於兩岸話語權執迷不悟,最終不只會撤出台灣的政治舞台,遲早也會在毫無利用價值後遭中共丟棄。 作者:慎之

給「投誠小草」的建議

我從未稱呼柯文哲的支持者「小草」,也不喜歡臉友用「小草」稱呼他們,但今天我要破例,對象是想「投誠」解放軍的柯文哲支持者。 幾天前,民眾黨號召支持者到北院聲援被提訊的柯文哲。面對記者的詢問,有個小草回答:「如果真的要上戰場,我會義無反顧的,去投誠解放軍!」 我寧可相信這是未經思考、脫口而出的回答。基於這樣的信念,我要幫這位小草澄清幾個概念: 一、千萬不要為了支持柯文哲而背叛台灣,因為解放軍的飛彈不長眼睛,柯文哲的支持者也無法倖免於難。 二、如果柯文哲是無辜的,最後司法會還他清白,犯不著對解放軍投誠。 三、如果覺得柯文哲受到司法打壓,你的抗議對象應該是檢調與法院,不需遷怒其他台灣人。 四、如果覺得柯文哲受到民進黨追殺,你的抗議對象應該是民進黨,不需遷怒其他台灣人。 如果投誠解放軍不是脫口而出的回答,我也要向這位小草解釋幾個事實: 一、投誠解放軍並不容易,最可能的情境是兩軍對峙的戰場前線。當你朝著解放軍的方向狂奔時,你可能會被我軍射殺。就算逃過我軍的砲火,你也可能遭受敵軍射殺。 二、如果你命大,成功投誠解放軍,你會被當成戰俘關進牢籠。你甚至會被懷疑是間諜,會遭受刑求逼供。許多戰爭電影都有類似情節。 三、戰爭結束後,你未必可以獲得自由。只要台灣屹立不搖(我有信心),你會被遣送回國,面對敵前叛逃的軍事審判。 如果投誠解放軍是這位小草的心願,我願意給他一個良心的建議:兩岸和平時就可投共,不必等到戰時再投誠解放軍。我的「和平投共」建議有諸多好處: 一、和平投共沒有被射殺的風險,只要買張機票就可投共。除非墜機,保證可以平安到達,而墜機風險遠低於在戰場前線被射殺的風險。 二、和平投共不會讓你失去人身自由,被關進解放軍的戰俘營,更不會被刑求逼供。你可以選擇居住地點、謀生方式、甚至可以結婚生子,雖然你上網要翻牆。 三、投共之後,你可以繼續在對岸聲援柯文哲,揭發台灣的司法不公、控訴民進黨的司法追殺。不過我要提醒你小心,不能踩到對岸的紅線。 四、如果你後悔投共的決定,只要再買一張機票,你隨時可回台灣,不必面對敵前叛逃的軍事審判。如果你願意分享後悔投共的理由,說不定還可以成為網紅。 #結論 我的建議沒有大學問,只是一般常識。我很難相信這位小草連基本常識都沒有。或許他曾經有常識,但因為支持柯文哲變笨了。這正是我要用「小草」稱呼他的原因! 作者:翁達瑞 / 美國大學教授

Recent Posts

從大罷免看藍白政治雙標:想扁時代那些亂事兒….

從大罷免看藍白政治雙標:想扁時代那些亂事兒….

當某些人評論一個人或一件事,所採取的審查標準,如因人因行而異其標準,網路上往往形容成「雙標仔」,該詞是略帶貶意。縱容這種浮動的評價標準,容易使既定的社會價值混亂,無論我們怎麼做都會引來無由的批評。最近,藍白為反大罷免幾乎走向一體化關係,將執政黨相關人事物無不放大檢驗,他們反擊的口實缺常被自己跨時空打臉。    [...]

More Info
台灣人的「民格」是一萬元就可以收買的嗎 ?

台灣人的「民格」是一萬元就可以收買的嗎 ?

戔戔一萬元,就可以收攬民心,為非作歹:可以摧毀行政權和立法權的分際、平衡,可以令控制立法權的邪惡集團,毫無牽制,民粹當頭,無所不用其極。 除了極權國家,有任何民主國家,立法權要立甚麼法,就有甚麼法;要甚麼預算,就有甚麼預算。行政權只能唯唯諾諾,一呼百應。 [...]

More Info
國民黨搶當北京代理人?論黨國權貴對台灣的私利與忠誠

國民黨搶當北京代理人?論黨國權貴對台灣的私利與忠誠

[...]

More Info
給「投誠小草」的建議

給「投誠小草」的建議

我從未稱呼柯文哲的支持者「小草」,也不喜歡臉友用「小草」稱呼他們,但今天我要破例,對象是想「投誠」解放軍的柯文哲支持者。 幾天前,民眾黨號召支持者到北院聲援被提訊的柯文哲。面對記者的詢問,有個小草回答:「如果真的要上戰場,我會義無反顧的,去投誠解放軍!」 我寧可相信這是未經思考、脫口而出的回答。基於這樣的信念,我要幫這位小草澄清幾個概念: [...]

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