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

韓國瑜與鄭麗文的隱形角力

賴清德總統邀請三院院長進行茶敘,局勢未成,不願接球的韓國瑜心中自有盤算。此時,行政院與立法院的僵持、立法院的執政在野黨團的衝突、以及國民黨鄭麗文黨主席與韓國瑜立法院長的隱性角力,都是2026前哨戰的主旋律。其中,韓國瑜和鄭麗文潛在的權力矛盾,是目前外界較少關注的切點。 立法院長韓國瑜與戰狼黨主席鄭麗文,兩位國民黨明星所代表的路線及戰略目標,存在本質互斥。他們的潛在矛盾,精準地折射出國民黨為何始終走不出深藍同溫層的困境。 韓國瑜自從接掌立法院長以來,明顯試圖進行一場人設重塑。經歷過總統大選的挫敗與罷免的羞辱,這位善於操作民粹語言的政治領袖,意識到中間選民的恐懼。因此,他努力在議事槌下尋求尊嚴與中立,全力扮演調和鼎鼐的公道伯。至少在形式上,韓國瑜盡力往中間靠攏,建立一種藍營內穩定的體制內權威。 然而,鄭麗文的當選,形成韓國瑜權威的最大挑戰。對於失望出走的藍營支持者而言,鄭麗文代表的是國民黨最令人詬病的一面:為了反對而反對的焦土戰術。她出身學運世代,本該最懂理性論述,但轉投國民黨後,她彷彿為了證明忠誠,表現得比傳統藍營更激進。她的問政風格往往充滿了情緒性的咆哮與人身攻擊,與羅智強等人比起來,有過之而無不及。 這形成了國民黨目前最尷尬的雙重人格:大腦(韓國瑜)試圖告訴大家「我很理性、我很穩重」,但嘴巴(鄭麗文)卻在不受控的拍桌斥責、破口大罵。 韓國瑜與鄭麗文,某種程度上都在爭奪藍營話語權,這是一場零和博弈。當韓國瑜想在國會建立秩序時,鄭麗文的戰鬥藍路線卻需要製造混亂來博取聲量。這種一邊蓋房子,一邊拆房子的內部矛盾,讓恨鐵不成鋼的藍營支持者看在眼裡,只能乾等2026、2028含淚投票。 韓國瑜想帶領國民黨重返執政,他必須壓制黨內的極端聲音,展現包容性。意味著他必須讓鄭麗文這樣的鷹派降溫,甚至「閉嘴」。鄭麗文深知自己的政治生命線繫於深藍基本盤,她不可能走溫和路線,反而還必須喊得更大聲,甚至要在關鍵時刻,例如在兩岸議題拋出更激進的論述,藉此綁架黨中央、迫使韓國瑜必須跟進。 若韓國瑜壓不住鄭麗文,國民黨就會繼續嚇跑中間選民。若兩人發生公開衝突,國民黨又會陷入內鬥分裂的輪迴。這對國民黨來說是一個死局。韓國瑜與鄭麗文的隱形角力,是「懷舊的民粹主義者」與「激進的機會主義者」在爭搶方向盤。 盱衡局勢,嚴格來說,韓國瑜和鄭麗文之間的競爭有七點: 一、提名衝突:2026縣市長和議會議長的名單安排,韓系人馬是否被擋或被「技術性處理」。二、立院藍營主推的法案遭遇社會強烈反彈:國會議長要降速保制度,黨主席要加速打戰功。三、兩岸論述出現過度親中的危機:韓為保國會外交形象而放低身段,黨主席為顧深藍而持續加碼。四、藍白合談判若再度破局,黨主席與院長的「責任敘事」可能互相推。 五、黨內權力中心之爭:黨中央要求立院黨團/院長「聽命」,但院長與黨團認為「現場你不懂」。六、媒體主角之爭:重大議題誰發聲、誰定調、誰收割,長期下來會累積怨氣。七、2028國民黨母雞/總統參選人:當「誰是最適合的總統候選人/誰是最大門面」被迫攤牌時,表面合作很難再維持完全無縫。 韓國瑜與鄭麗文可以在公開場合會握手言歡,但彼此心知,對方是自己互相抵消的負能量。韓國瑜想洗白,被鄭麗文的黑臉拖住;鄭麗文想衝撞,被韓國瑜的體制角色卡住。韓國瑜與鄭麗文的潛在緊張關係,是國民黨2026到2028之間遲早必須面臨的重大關卡,韓、鄭兩人終須一戰。 作者:江諺行

倒閣不敢、彈劾作秀:藍白的憲政話術現形記   

近日立法院掀起「倒閣、彈劾」聲浪,藍白陣營高舉憲政大旗、聲量震天,彷彿正義凜然,實則不過是一場精心計算過的政治秀。真正的關鍵不在於他們說了什麼,而在於他們不敢真的做什麼。 憲法明定,倒閣若成功,總統得以解散國會、全面改選。藍白目前雖握有國會多數,卻心知肚明,一旦重新面對民意,席次是否還能守住,恐怕是未知數。正因如此,倒閣才會喊得最大聲,卻始終停在口號階段,成為情緒動員的出口,而非真正承擔政治後果的選項。 當倒閣玩不起,藍白立刻切換戰場,改打「彈劾」牌。彈劾的好處是什麼?成本低、風險小、聲量大,而且幾乎不可能成功。這正是它成為政治話術首選的原因。不論是彈劾總統或行政院長,現行憲政制度的門檻都高得近乎不可能。彈劾總統需立法院三分之二同意,藍白席次明顯不足,還得送交憲法法庭審理,而目前大法官人數甚至未達法定門檻;至於行政院長,立法院根本無權直接彈劾,最多只是移送監察院,最終仍掌握在監委手中。 換言之,藍白比任何人都清楚:彈劾不會過。既然不會過,那為什麼還要提?答案只有一個,這是一場做給支持者看的政治表演。透過彈劾話術,卻完全不用承擔制度性後果;既不必面對重選風險,又能在輿論上為對手貼上「違憲」、「濫權」標籤,為未來選舉預先鋪路。這不是監督,而是情緒操作。 倒閣不敢玩真的,彈劾明知不會過,卻仍執意操作聲量,這樣的政治行為,已經不能再被美化為「監督政府」。那是一種對制度毫不尊重、對民主極度投機的算計。當藍白政客只剩下話術可以取暖、只剩下激情可以動員,卻始終不願為自己的主張付出任何政治代價時,受傷的從來不是被罵的官員,而是整個社會對憲政秩序的信任。民主不是情緒宣洩場,更不是流量變現工具;把倒閣與彈劾當成舞台效果來消費,終將讓台灣的民主付出集體成本,而歷史也會清楚記下:是誰在關鍵時刻,選擇了表演政治,卻逃避了應負的責任。   作者:林政武

台海若發生戰爭 國際是否會支援?

假如有一天中國在台灣海峽開啟戰爭,國際是否支援台灣?先講結論,會。但會在什麼情境下支援升級到什麼程度,需視衝突規模而定。國際政治從來不是民主遊戲,而是賽局博弈,不能簡單用道德價值觀判斷。 依據目前的情況,若台海發生戰爭,中國可能有幾種方式攻占台灣: (一)灰色封鎖戰術:以不明說開戰的方式,直接封鎖台灣的重要物資,希望製造外資與供應鏈的撤離,製造台灣社會恐慌,期望讓受不了壓力的台灣政府簽下類似和平協議,或達成讓親中政權上台的構想。 (二)攻佔外島:短時間攻佔金門、馬祖等離島,營造戰爭情勢大好的氛圍,而台灣當局可能因為爭論是否保衛離島而分裂,同樣期望台灣社會恐慌,期望台灣政府因害怕戰爭,而簽下和平協議。但若操作失敗,可能導致戰爭因此擴大。 (三)直接登陸台灣:若中國想要直接統治台灣,會選擇直接登陸,也就是「武統」,而中國武統有兩種途徑:從北部登陸,期望透過快速攻佔首都的方式,實施政權輪替。或者從中南東部登陸,期望透過蠶食鯨吞的方法,佔領全台灣。 由於台灣海峽在世界經濟占據重要地位,若台灣發生戰爭,國際會依實際情況有不同的支援方式: (一)灰色封鎖戰術:對於世界各國而言,灰色封鎖戰術形同挑戰國際航行自由,各國可能會派遣航空兵力巡邏,並討論對封鎖方的制裁方案,緊急支援台灣的能源與醫療資源。由於這時間點並不算是真正構成戰爭,因此各國可能從外交同盟與經濟制裁並進的手段慢慢升級,考驗社會耐心。 (二)攻佔外島:若對岸短時間攻佔金門、馬祖等離島,各國容易視中國為「明確開戰」,但還沒上升到全面熱戰的地步,更接近俄羅斯攻佔克里米亞的情況,國際最有可能的支援是「軍援台灣」,希望提高嚇阻力,阻擋中國政權更進一步。但避免為了幾個小島升級戰況,各國的作為可能更謹慎,將考驗台灣政府的敘事能力,若情勢不對,台灣反倒可能遭國際施壓。 (三)直接登陸台灣:假如中國決定攻占台灣,各國的回應將會強烈,包括大規模軍援、全面制裁、供應鏈切割等方式,但每個國家情況不同,太平洋的國家更傾向干涉,歐亞的國家更傾向與低度的支援,但是否直接參戰的關鍵在於,各國判斷「保衛台灣的利益是否足以付出將士的性命」以及「戰爭後續是否會升級為核風險」。若各國若介入戰爭,首先的作為可能是巡邏台灣海峽,測試中國的反應;再者提供衛星情報協助國軍防禦;以及轟炸中國的軍事基地,實施有限度的介入;最後才可能走向直接參戰。若不幸發生「核戰爭」,則戰況將升級為世界大戰,國際將會走向殲滅政權的總體戰,到時不是支援與否的問題了。 雖然台海有難,會獲得國際相助,但是在賽局博弈的場合,「錦上添花」才是常態,台灣必須展現足夠的社會韌性、堅強備戰的決心,這樣世界人民才有信心押寶台灣。如果是極端脆弱、政府人民立場搖擺的台灣,想必各國看了也不願押寶,即使降下神兵天將也難救了 作者/Oscar

為什麼在野黨不敢提倒閣?

為什麼在野黨不敢提倒閣?簡單說一句話:因為「彈劾好說、倒閣難贏」,而且倒閣的風險遠高於收益。以下從制度面、現實面、策略面以及現正面來分析。 首先從制度面來說,彈劾與倒閣的門檻結構完全不同,彈劾總統話題性高、實質性低,可以不必真的成功,只要「提出來」就能製造政治議題、質疑總統正當性並對支持者交代。所以,彈劾是一種「政治訊號」工具。 然而,倒閣實質權力高、政治風險極大。倒閣是對行政院長提出不信任案,但後果是行政院長下台 或總統解散立法院,全面改選。這不是喊口號,而是賭整個國會版圖 接著,從現實面來說,在野黨不敢承擔「改選風險」,因為國會席次結構不利。目前在野兩黨,合計雖可形成攻防,但沒有把握在全面改選後一定贏得更多席次,一旦倒閣失敗或改選失利,不只制衡不了政府,還可能「送回完全執政」。 此外,民眾黨的結構性顧慮,民眾黨席次少、抗風險能力低。改選可能席次減少,甚至邊緣化。對民眾黨而言,倒閣是高風險、低保障的賭局。 再者,從政治策略面來說,彈劾「可以打政府,但不用負責」,這是關鍵。彈劾話題的好處是,可以天天開記者會、可以佔據媒體版面、可以凝聚反政府情緒、不用承擔實際執政後果。相反的,倒閣的代價較高,一旦成功,就要面對「那你們準備好執政了嗎?」,會被選民檢驗替代方案,在野黨目前還沒準備好承擔這一步。 最後,從憲政責任面來說,倒閣是真正的「責任政治」。倒閣的本質是:「我否定你這個政府,我願意承擔後果,換我或重新選。」彈劾則是:「我質疑你,但我不接手、不改選、不承擔。」所以在政治語言上,彈劾等於攻擊;倒閣等於承擔。在野黨用彈劾,是為了「對抗敘事」;不走倒閣,是因為不想「進入承擔」。   總之彈劾是政治動員工具,倒閣是憲政責任行動,在野黨現在選擇前者,是因為後者風險太高。彈劾是「我們不滿,但不押身家」;倒閣是「我們不滿,而且敢賭一把」。目前在野黨的選擇是要政治壓力,不要政治賭局。   作者:立雪

Recent Posts

韓國瑜與鄭麗文的隱形角力

韓國瑜與鄭麗文的隱形角力

賴清德總統邀請三院院長進行茶敘,局勢未成,不願接球的韓國瑜心中自有盤算。此時,行政院與立法院的僵持、立法院的執政在野黨團的衝突、以及國民黨鄭麗文黨主席與韓國瑜立法院長的隱性角力,都是2026前哨戰的主旋律。其中,韓國瑜和鄭麗文潛在的權力矛盾,是目前外界較少關注的切點。 [...]

More Info
倒閣不敢、彈劾作秀:藍白的憲政話術現形記   

倒閣不敢、彈劾作秀:藍白的憲政話術現形記   

近日立法院掀起「倒閣、彈劾」聲浪,藍白陣營高舉憲政大旗、聲量震天,彷彿正義凜然,實則不過是一場精心計算過的政治秀。真正的關鍵不在於他們說了什麼,而在於他們不敢真的做什麼。 [...]

More Info
台海若發生戰爭 國際是否會支援?

台海若發生戰爭 國際是否會支援?

假如有一天中國在台灣海峽開啟戰爭,國際是否支援台灣?先講結論,會。但會在什麼情境下支援升級到什麼程度,需視衝突規模而定。國際政治從來不是民主遊戲,而是賽局博弈,不能簡單用道德價值觀判斷。 依據目前的情況,若台海發生戰爭,中國可能有幾種方式攻占台灣: [...]

More Info
為什麼在野黨不敢提倒閣?

為什麼在野黨不敢提倒閣?

為什麼在野黨不敢提倒閣?簡單說一句話:因為「彈劾好說、倒閣難贏」,而且倒閣的風險遠高於收益。以下從制度面、現實面、策略面以及現正面來分析。 首先從制度面來說,彈劾與倒閣的門檻結構完全不同,彈劾總統話題性高、實質性低,可以不必真的成功,只要「提出來」就能製造政治議題、質疑總統正當性並對支持者交代。所以,彈劾是一種「政治訊號」工具。 [...]

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