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

如何解決台灣勞動力不足之議題

你有沒有發現,最近身邊很多人開始討論台灣的人口問題?像是生育率變低啦、少子化,甚至有人說未來找不到人來工作,整個社會會「老化」得很嚴重。這些聽起來好像是很遙遠的問題,但其實真的離我們越來越近了。 台灣現在最大的一個挑戰之一就是「勞動人口」越來越少。簡單來說,就是能出來工作、願意工作的壯年人口(大概20歲到64歲之間)越來越不夠用了。原因很簡單,我們的長輩──也就是嬰兒潮那一代的人──他們年紀漸漸大了,開始退休,而年輕人又越生越少,人口沒有補上來,那誰來工作?誰來扛起這個社會的運作?這真的是很現實的問題。 要解決這個問題,最直接的辦法當然是鼓勵大家多生小孩,可是這不是一天兩天就能見效的事情。從一個小孩出生,到他能夠出社會工作,至少要20年。而且要養一個小孩長大,家庭、社會和國家都要投入很多資源,像是教育、醫療、托育、學費補助等等,這都是一筆不小的花費。說實話,現在很多年輕人自己都快養不起自己了,哪還敢生小孩? 因此,除了長期的生育政策之外,一個更快、更有效率的方式可以幫助我們解決眼前的勞動人口問題,那就是開放移民。 移民這個概念,其實在很多國家都不是新鮮事,像是加拿大、澳洲、新加坡、德國等等,他們都有針對特定的行業開放外國人移民,來補足他們國內缺乏的勞動力。不是沒有外國人來工作,但目前大部分都是以移工為主,而且很多政策都不夠開放,讓一些真正想來台灣長期工作、甚至定居的人,處處碰壁。 其實,台灣作為一個海島國家,我們本來就應該更有國際視野、更願意開放與世界接軌。我們不能一直守在自己的一小塊土地上、靠自己的少少人口撐整個國家。尤其在全球化這麼發達的今天,人才是會流動的。如果我們能針對特定的專業領域,比如說科技、醫療、工程、農業、甚至是照護服務,開放外國專業人士來台,不僅能馬上補足我們的人力需求,還有可能讓台灣的產業更有競爭力。 而且從一個更務實的角度來看,外來移民來台工作,他們會在這裡生活、消費、繳稅、租房甚至買房,也會使用本地的交通、餐飲、教育等資源,這對我們的整體經濟是很有幫助的。長遠來看,如果這些移民願意落地生根,成為我們的鄰居、朋友、甚至家人,那不就是幫台灣補上人口、文化和勞動力的空缺嗎? 當然,有人可能會擔心說,這樣會不會搶走本地人的工作?會不會造成文化衝突?這些都是可以理解的疑慮。但重點是政府要怎麼設計一個平衡的制度,像是針對缺工的行業優先開放、設立語言與文化整合課程、保障本地人的就業機會等等。這不是不可能,只是需要決心與政策上的調整。 台灣的勞動人口正在快速萎縮,而我們不能只靠自然出生來等人口成長。開放移民,是一個可以快速補足勞動力缺口、讓台灣繼續往前走的可行方式。當然這需要謹慎規劃,但不做的話,問題只會越來越嚴重。台灣如果要走得更遠、更有未來,就必須學會擁抱改變,學會和世界接軌,勇敢打開門迎接新的可能。

北市「天眼狗」,是巡檢還是監控?

當網紅「館長」對上海街頭密密麻麻的「天眼」監視器讚不絕口,直呼「做得很好」時,台北市民朋友們,未來也能「有幸」享受這份無孔不入的「安全感」了!拜台北市政府引進的「智能機器狗」所賜,這款號稱「巡檢新夥伴」的機器,不僅帶來了「高效率」的願景,更帶來了令人瞠目結舌的資安疑慮、天價採購以及羅生門式洗產地的問題。 首先,台北市副市長李四川風光介紹的「巡檢新夥伴」機器狗,搭載光學全景調查系統,宣稱能360度建模、精準定位設施。然而,這隻「智能機器狗」隨即被踢爆,其真身是來自中國宇樹科技製造的Unitree Go2,其背後的資安風險,著實令人背脊發涼。 前陣子破獲的共諜案中,中共要求共諜攜帶「激光測繪儀」繪測台灣道路設施,建立資料庫。而這隻中國機器狗也搭載「激光測繪」的功能,共諜抓了,機器狗還是可以接棒上路。 更令人憂心的是,美國聯邦眾議院「美國與中國共產黨戰略競爭特設委員會」在今年5月就曾指出,宇樹科技與中國解放軍關係密切,主動參與軍民融合計畫,生產具有軍事用途的機器狗產品,並且能以後門程式將資料傳回中國。這豈不等於台北市民花錢買了一隻監控自己的「木馬狗」嗎? 其次,台北市府購買單一機器狗本體就要新台幣70萬元左右,之後還要投入環景巡檢與遠端遙控等研發經費約600萬元、語音辨識整合研發費1000萬元。然而,中國宇樹科技Go2機器狗在台灣獨家代理商的官網上,單隻簡配版售價不到新台幣7萬元,在淘寶上更僅約 1.3萬人民幣(約新台幣5.5萬元)。 這巨大的價差,讓5、6萬元的機器狗本體瞬間飆漲成70萬元,難不成買的是那份「與中國資安風險為伍」的獨特體驗嗎? 最後,面對外界對「天眼狗」的質疑,蔣萬安市長將球丟給了新工處,「洗產地」的疑慮沒有澄清,反而讓問題更加複雜。新工處聲稱機器狗的資訊傳輸與軟體開發由台灣廠商負責,企圖藉此撇清資安風險。他們甚至搬出美國波士頓動力公司來混淆視聽。 筆者試問,這隻機器狗的硬體載具來自於一個與解放軍關係密切的公司,硬體內是否留有後門程式?其「激光測繪」功能是否會將台灣的敏感地理資訊傳回中國?這些最關鍵的風險問題,蔣萬安市長別裝傻,請親自回答。  

柯文哲夫婦脫序行為對台灣司法的傷害

在台灣的民主政治發展歷程中,司法權的中立與獨立,始終是維護憲政秩序的重要基石。然而,近年來政治人物及其家屬,常透過媒體或社群平台,對司法判決表達不滿與質疑。此種行為雖屬言論自由範疇,但若呈現脫序、情緒化,並缺乏具體證據,則不僅影響社會觀感,亦可能對司法體系造成實質傷害。柯文哲夫婦的多次公開言行,正是此一現象的代表案例,值得深入探討。   司法威信建立於公正與中立之上。柯文哲夫婦在公開場合,屢以戲謔或諷刺方式批評司法判決,甚至質疑檢調辦案動機。此類言論雖有助於凝聚支持群眾,卻會使大眾誤以為司法完全受政治操控,進而動搖制度之正當性。當司法威信遭到削弱,民眾對判決之服從力下降,將直接威脅法治秩序之穩定。   司法除了裁判爭訟,亦具有教育功能,藉公開審理與合理判決,培養公民之守法意識。然而,柯文哲夫婦的脫序言行,可能強化「司法無公信」的社會印象,使民眾誤認法律僅服務於權貴,甚至產生「遵守法律無意義」之錯誤觀念。此不僅侵蝕社會信任,更可能危害年輕世代之法治教育,對社會秩序造成深層次影響。   在民主社會,政治人物應以理性辯論作為表率,透過制度性途徑推動司法改革。然而,柯文哲夫婦多以情緒化言辭來獲取聲量,缺乏具體政策主張。此舉易使公共討論流於民粹與對立,阻礙理性對話之形成。更甚者,若長期傳遞「司法無公信」之訊息,可能導致部分民眾以激進手段挑戰司法秩序,破壞三權分立之憲政結構,對民主運作構成潛在威脅。   司法體系並非無懈可擊,審理遲延、判決差異及透明度不足等問題,確有檢討之必要。然而,批判應建立於實證資料與制度分析,而非情緒性攻擊。政治人物若真欲推動改革,可透過修法、司法透明化機制、法官評鑑制度等途徑來改善。唯有以制度性方式進行批判,方能在監督與尊重之間取得平衡,避免對司法造成不當傷害。   柯文哲夫婦的脫序行為,固然可視為言論自由的一部分,但因其具高度社會影響力,其言行對司法體系之衝擊遠超一般民眾。此類言論若缺乏理性基礎,不僅削弱司法威信,亦侵蝕社會信任,並對台灣民主政治產生負面影響。未來,唯有透過制度性改革與理性批判,方能兼顧司法尊嚴與改革需求,確保台灣法治與民主之持續發展。

Why Not Support Lo Chih-chiang for KMT Chairman?

Wasn’t there a highly respected, nationally admired heavyweight in the KMT who once praised Lo as a “universal charger”? By “universal,” they meant that Legislator Lo possesses both competence and […]

Recent Posts

老台北的公共浴室文化

老台北的公共浴室文化

      [...]

More Info
如何解決台灣勞動力不足之議題

如何解決台灣勞動力不足之議題

你有沒有發現,最近身邊很多人開始討論台灣的人口問題?像是生育率變低啦、少子化,甚至有人說未來找不到人來工作,整個社會會「老化」得很嚴重。這些聽起來好像是很遙遠的問題,但其實真的離我們越來越近了。 [...]

More Info
北市「天眼狗」,是巡檢還是監控?

北市「天眼狗」,是巡檢還是監控?

當網紅「館長」對上海街頭密密麻麻的「天眼」監視器讚不絕口,直呼「做得很好」時,台北市民朋友們,未來也能「有幸」享受這份無孔不入的「安全感」了!拜台北市政府引進的「智能機器狗」所賜,這款號稱「巡檢新夥伴」的機器,不僅帶來了「高效率」的願景,更帶來了令人瞠目結舌的資安疑慮、天價採購以及羅生門式洗產地的問題。 [...]

More Info
柯文哲夫婦脫序行為對台灣司法的傷害

柯文哲夫婦脫序行為對台灣司法的傷害

在台灣的民主政治發展歷程中,司法權的中立與獨立,始終是維護憲政秩序的重要基石。然而,近年來政治人物及其家屬,常透過媒體或社群平台,對司法判決表達不滿與質疑。此種行為雖屬言論自由範疇,但若呈現脫序、情緒化,並缺乏具體證據,則不僅影響社會觀感,亦可能對司法體系造成實質傷害。柯文哲夫婦的多次公開言行,正是此一現象的代表案例,值得深入探討。   [...]

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