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

強化刑滿出獄犯罪人管理監督機制 防悲劇再生

苗栗日前發生48歲男子持刀隨機砍傷人案件,犯嫌10年前就在同地點以同樣手法犯案,出獄才半年就重蹈覆轍,引發輿論譁然。本案突顯現行針對刑滿出獄犯罪人的管理監督機制闕如,亟需補強。         我國出獄的犯罪人大致可分為「假釋出監」與「刑滿釋放」兩類型。前者按刑法第93條第2項規定:「假釋出獄者,在假釋中付保護管束」,在保護管束期間,由執行保護管束的觀護人對假釋出監者實施訪視或約談,以進行監督與輔導,如渠於假釋期間故意犯罪受判處有期徒刑以上刑罰,或違反保安處分執行法第74條之2明定應遵守事項且情節重大,都可能導致假釋受撤銷,需重返監獄執行殘餘刑期。至於如本案犯嫌般的刑滿釋放犯罪人,雖有各地的更生保護會提供輔導就業、短期安置、資送回籍等協助,然而該會屬財團法人的公益機構,並無法定強制力,因而欠缺監督管理機制。         針對本案般曾吸毒、具暴力傾向且因在監表現惡劣未獲假釋的犯罪人,因其刑滿釋放後再犯罪可能性高,應考量採行刑法中替代或補充刑罰的手段:「保安處分」。相較於刑罰係針對犯罪人過去之犯罪行為科以之處罰,而保安處分係針對犯罪人之危險性,為預防其未來犯罪,危害社會大眾安全,所實施之保全或矯治措施,如刑法第91條之1即規定性侵害案件受刑人,於徒刑執行期滿前,經鑑定、評估,認有再犯之危險者,經法院裁定入相當處所進行強制治療,且強制治療之期間至再犯危險顯著降低為止,目的即為防衛社會安全,故應將此種保安處分擴及惡性與再犯危險性均高的暴力犯罪人。此種犯罪人如服刑屆滿前經暴力風險評估有再犯之虞者,應先令渠至專業醫療機構接受認知輔導教育、情緒管理與衝動控制及戒癮治療等輔導或治療,至改善引發暴力的扭曲認知思考為止。         再者,若此種犯罪人重返社區,實有必要強化監控力度,應考量由地檢署對其執行科技設備監控,並與警方監視錄影系統介接,以即時掌握其行蹤與動態,一旦發現有攜帶刀械、投擲危險物等危害行為,警方就可即時制止,防堵傷害產生或擴大。 作者:王昱培

當跨國企業遇到部落級政府:看輝達投資士北科一案的荒謬

當全球矚目的科技企業輝達(NVIDIA)選址或與地方政府合作時,往往需要與當地政府構築制度合作、規範協調與利益共享機制。然而,若地方政府模式如「部落級管理」般僵化、程序不透明、權責混沌,這樣的對話就會淪為單方面拉扯與鬧劇。近期台北市政府在某些政策與招商案上的操作,正展現了一個都市典型的困境:跨國企業遇到部落級政府,實在讓筆者無言以對。 跨國高科技企業奔馳前來來台設點,往往希望取得穩定的投資環境、明確法規預期與高效率的政府服務。這是一條雙向契約:地方政府提供土地、稅務優惠、公共基礎建設與行政協助,企業則帶來資金、就業與產業升級動能。當一方失聲、另一方不得其回,契約精神即告破裂。面對讓人無言以對的地方政府,可能在以下幾方面暴露短板: 首先,制度流程不夠清晰,若政策說明不完整、地方審查程序繁瑣、跨局處協調障礙多,企業可能等不到回音; 其次,利益分配不透明,地方政府常在招商談判中提出若干條件(如建設義務、土地回饋、稅收分成等),若未預先公開企業與政府權責,洽談過程很容易被質疑「暗盤交易」或利益輸送。       第三,權責界線模糊,台北市政府若對某些區域或地方自治單位,卻因管理權責分散、自治能力強,市府在招商時可能無法快速介入或協調。這種「部落級」狀態,實質上降低了跨部門整合與效率。       第四,政治風險高漲,尤其碰到地方選舉、議會動態、居民抗爭壓力,可能使政府在招商案進度中遲疑或變卦,使輝達投資北士科面臨政策不確定性。 類似輝達這種跨國企業與部落級政府的權力博弈,台北市政府表現得像「部落級政府」一詞,筆者借用來形容那些在特定區域擁有強大自治或遊戲規則制定權的地方勢力:視招商為談判、視資源為自留地、視流程為談判籌碼。這種模式與跨國企業的制度化邏輯常有衝突。台北市作為我國首都,一直被視為制度化、專業化的典範。但若在招商與重大產業布局上,仍呈現部落級政府運作型態,那對城市治理是一大警訊:乃治理效率被削弱,招商、審查、跨局處協調、公共設施提供、環評與後續監管等,要做到「一案到底、快速回應」,不能靠個別協商,而應仰賴制度設計。 部落級政府若讓每案都成為「談判個案」,長期下去會拖慢整體招商速度與信賴度。為了避免「跨國企業遇到部落級政府」的困局,以下是筆者建議政策建議:首先,建立招商條例與公開準則,制定一套明確、公開、可追蹤的招商與合作條約準則,避免每案都必須重新談判。政府應預先公布招商條件基準(獎勵、回饋、土地使用、稅收分成等),企業可依據這些基準自行評估風險;再者,「跨部門整合窗口」與「一站式審查制」對重大科技事業或投資案,市府應設立專責窗口或整合小組,負責跨局處協調、法令排除、進度管控等,免去企業來回奔波與資訊斷層。 輝達若選擇在台北投資或合作,而市府無法依法回應、制度化接軌,那跨國企業與地方政府間的對話即使未破裂,也極可能陷入尷尬的默契僵局。這樣的場景,是一座都市治理的縮影:當地政府若仍以部落級方式操作關鍵招商案,那麼城市將失去制度魅力,難以成為跨國企業青睞的智力熱土。對台北而言,筆者憂心地認為倘若不在招商制度、公共治理、資訊透明與跨部門協調機制上升級,未來即使再多跨國企業落腳,也可能因彼此理解落差被挫敗。輝達或其他全球科技巨擘,不必也不應被迫默守沉默;而台北市若真想在國際舞台捍衛都市品牌,必須告別部落式管理,迎向制度與產業深度融合的未來。 作者:林士清

救災以外,花蓮馬太鞍的原住民族觀點

9月23日爆發的花蓮馬太鞍溪堰塞湖災害,讓全國人民的目光焦點都在這個東部偏鄉,尤其在媒體上看到,搭乘台鐵前往光復站的成千上萬「鏟子超人」,這些畫面感動無數台灣民眾,甚至引來外國媒體報導。不過,外界很少注意到以當地原住民族為主體的聲音,也不關心在地部落的歷史脈絡,甚至在無意間接受媒體與網友對原住民族的「微歧視」(microaggression),值得我們深思。 首先,媒體說的花蓮縣「光復鄉」,顧名思義,是戰後所謂「光復」才出現的外來新地名,缺乏在地的文化意涵。其古地名為「馬太鞍」,源自阿美語Fata’an,意指「樹豆」,因為阿美族的祖先發現此地盛產「樹豆」,成為重要的糧食來源。實際上所謂的「光復鄉」,約有一半人口是原住民族,其中有兩大阿美族部落世居於此,除了馬太鞍部落,另一個是知名的太巴塱部落(阿美語Tafalong,意指白螃蟹)。因此,當地原住民族曾有將「光復鄉」正名為「馬太鄉」的倡議運動,然而尚未成功。所幸一些網路意見領袖注意到這一點,有意識地使用「馬太鞍」這個原鄉地名,而非「光復鄉」。 其次,在網路流傳的災區短影片,出現當地原住民族居民在救災過程苦中作樂、自娛娛人的畫面,譬如拿出啤酒請「鏟子超人」一起喝,底下的網友留言出現兩種觀點:第一種是漢人沙文主義的惡意歧視,這必須檢討與批判,不必多論;第二種是出於善意,稱讚原住民族的樂觀幽默、熱情好客云云,但這卻隱含著「微歧視」的危險。 所謂的「微歧視」,是指表面上看似微不足道或無心之過,實際上卻具有負面歧視意味的語言或行為。「微歧視」的特徵是涉及地位不對等的權力關係,而其內容往往不被主流社會認為是冒犯或歧視,因此常被視為玩笑話。 以前例而言,當地的原住民族居民為了回饋救災的「鏟子超人」,拿出啤酒共飲,這是人之常情,卻容易導向原住民族愛喝酒、及時行樂的刻板印象,忽略了這只是漫長的救災過程之中,暫時紓壓的一個微小片段。 原住民族面對巨大的自然災害,與漢人同樣有負面情緒,無論是無能為力、難過或憤怒,不應簡化為單一的族群特質,就像男性要陽剛、女性要溫柔的性別偏見。外界需要尊重原住民族自己的聲音,並把焦點放在導致當地居民處於社會弱勢地位的結構性因素。 作者:尚智  

棄保效應浮現?國民黨主席選舉的「選票博弈」?

      國民黨主席選舉已進入最後倒數階段,原本被認為勢如破竹的鄭麗文聲勢近日遭遇重挫警訊,黨內暗潮湧動,棄保效應似乎悄然浮現,成為左右勝負的潛在關鍵。這場選戰在多角競爭的外衣之下,實則是派系競爭再分配的博弈現場,誰抓到「流動票」、「棄轉票」,誰就可能勝出;而非重構黨理想及政策路線。         最近有媒體公開一份全黨員民調,顯示鄭麗文以約30% 支持度領先群雄,遙遙領先郝龍斌、羅智強等人。畢竟近期鄭麗文對綠營展現強硬、比深藍更深藍,在兩岸立場上更加激進,間接影響羅智強民調。羅智強與鄭麗文在政治風格與支持圈重疊頗多,甚至吹起「棄羅保鄭」或「棄羅保郝」風向,意在討好深藍選民,然近期因鄭希望拜訪力倡親美、偏保守的日本新自民黨總裁高市早苗,犯深藍選民大忌,也許他們倆人都成為被棄保對象。        所以重現棄保效應,須了解國民黨主席選舉制度本身。根據黨內作業安排,這次選舉採「全國黨員直接投票、單記相對多數」制度。這意味著,每一張黨員票都相當重要,任何被忽視的票源都可能成為勝敗關鍵。然而,黨員結構本身也導致票源的重構空間被限定。據媒體報導,目前國民黨約有 33 萬名黨員,其中六十五歲以上並免繳黨費的長者約占 22 萬人,是所謂的「正統黨員」基數。真正能動員的票源,往往是在其餘約 11 萬名較具流動性的年輕黨員或地方自主黨員;換言之,誰能在這11萬票中動得票,就能左右整體佈局,尤其與地方派系綁定較深者。    因此,本次初選候選人中似乎主觀認為,只要放大自身優勢、壓縮對手空間,就可能發起暗中的票源拉攏、士氣動員、或釋出退讓訊號,刺激可游移之選票。然而,即使某候選人正式退選或釋出支持,也未必能完全引導票源轉向,事實上,藍營面臨長期結構問題即信仰動搖、兩岸敘事、醬缸文化、與地方坐大使中央式微等危機。   從其支持者組成可看出上述危機,深藍黨員是因仇視民進黨而不得不繼續支持藍營,然隨著九二共識逐漸失靈,國民黨與中華民國神主牌結合的媒介,主要是憲法中增修條文的「統一前言」,大中華國族意識仍如幽靈一般縈繞在國民黨身上,這卻與台灣主體意識背離,使該前言成為法律上一只具文。同時覬覦對岸統戰紅利與本土選票使近十年來藍營難以左右逢源,僅能被動祈禱綠營執政不力或卑微地祈求白營施捨年輕選票,如這次郝龍斌蔚藍白合呼籲柯文哲放下細故,共同下架民進黨。國民黨在國族論述上混亂,仍堅持以九二共識、一中各表來麻痺選民,久之仍須面臨中美對抗現實,台灣必須選擇明確立場,深藍選民看著藍營未重塑一條新兩岸路線,想必心有戚戚焉。      至於藍營地方或年輕淺藍,前者基於過去派系共治延續的同盟關係,他們在護誰能帶領藍營贏得地方及中央大選,自己將在地方分一杯羹。年輕人則是最游移部分,畢竟藍營故步自封已久,加上與對岸「剪不斷,理還亂」的模糊關係,總使年輕支持者卻步。     從本次初選進行為止,藍營似乎沒意識到政黨理念是大於暫時選舉勝利與利益分配,試想,昔日綠營從1980年代崛起迄今,黨內面臨派系分裂、大角出走、多次敗選、台獨黨綱爭論,大體然卻堅持初衷,使人一見民進黨就聯想民主、本土自主性及進步價值,曾深陷多次危機總能熬過去,歸因於對建黨理想、本土化堅持,不選擇既要兩岸交流紅利卻又垂涎台灣政權,足供藍營當局思考。 作者:風林火山

Recent Posts

強化刑滿出獄犯罪人管理監督機制 防悲劇再生

強化刑滿出獄犯罪人管理監督機制 防悲劇再生

苗栗日前發生48歲男子持刀隨機砍傷人案件,犯嫌10年前就在同地點以同樣手法犯案,出獄才半年就重蹈覆轍,引發輿論譁然。本案突顯現行針對刑滿出獄犯罪人的管理監督機制闕如,亟需補強。         [...]

More Info
當跨國企業遇到部落級政府:看輝達投資士北科一案的荒謬

當跨國企業遇到部落級政府:看輝達投資士北科一案的荒謬

當全球矚目的科技企業輝達(NVIDIA)選址或與地方政府合作時,往往需要與當地政府構築制度合作、規範協調與利益共享機制。然而,若地方政府模式如「部落級管理」般僵化、程序不透明、權責混沌,這樣的對話就會淪為單方面拉扯與鬧劇。近期台北市政府在某些政策與招商案上的操作,正展現了一個都市典型的困境:跨國企業遇到部落級政府,實在讓筆者無言以對。 [...]

More Info
救災以外,花蓮馬太鞍的原住民族觀點

救災以外,花蓮馬太鞍的原住民族觀點

9月23日爆發的花蓮馬太鞍溪堰塞湖災害,讓全國人民的目光焦點都在這個東部偏鄉,尤其在媒體上看到,搭乘台鐵前往光復站的成千上萬「鏟子超人」,這些畫面感動無數台灣民眾,甚至引來外國媒體報導。不過,外界很少注意到以當地原住民族為主體的聲音,也不關心在地部落的歷史脈絡,甚至在無意間接受媒體與網友對原住民族的「微歧視」(microaggression),值得我們深思。 [...]

More Info
棄保效應浮現?國民黨主席選舉的「選票博弈」?

棄保效應浮現?國民黨主席選舉的「選票博弈」?

      國民黨主席選舉已進入最後倒數階段,原本被認為勢如破竹的鄭麗文聲勢近日遭遇重挫警訊,黨內暗潮湧動,棄保效應似乎悄然浮現,成為左右勝負的潛在關鍵。這場選戰在多角競爭的外衣之下,實則是派系競爭再分配的博弈現場,誰抓到「流動票」、「棄轉票」,誰就可能勝出;而非重構黨理想及政策路線。       [...]

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