Remember when the WHO didn't recognize Taiwan as a sevreign nation? Obviously the WHO isn't solely objective.
Which is perfectly reasonable if you understand that these questions are looked at through the lens of international diplomacy and these people don't just wing geopolitical questions because every single answer can cause an international shitstorm (not just in regards to China, but every territorial conflict really). This may look awkward to the ordinary viewer but it's not really.
The WHO has a fairly strong interest in staying out of politics and being a health organisation, so whatever diplomatic position they take is mostly just going to be whatever the status quo is. If you think the non-recognition of Taiwan is unethical then you should take that up with your respective government, a guy speaking for the WHO isn't really in any position to make incindiary political commentary.
But it does support the statement that "The WHO is a political organization with medical leanings".
Personally I think that statement puts it a bit too strongly. It would be like saying "PyCon is a feminist organization with technical leanings."
Or even any cases where they were wilfully blind?
Sure, they can make a bold impassioned speech about how science is far beyond petty concerns like national sovereignty and so on, but this isn't a movie where a great speech suddenly brings everyone to their senses. In reality the WHO works through public health departments in nearly 200 countries and also gets its funding from governments, so if they spit int he face of sovereignty, they'll cease to exist in any meaningful way and aggregate health outcomes will definitely be worse.
I didn't say organisations can or should ignore politics - of course, politics affect every organisation, especially those that work across borders.
My entire comment was about the childish behaviour of the WHO represenatative when asked about Taiwan[0] - he was literally one step away from putting his fingers in his ears and shouting "na na na na na!".
"Taiwan" isn't a country. It's an island controlled by the Republic of China alongside its other holdings. The ROC is a state that has existed since 1912 with continual international diplomatic recognition since then. Other countries switching diplomatic recognition from the ROC to the PRC didn't magically make the ROC vanish.
I really dislike the fact that the media and government in the US refers to the ROC as "Taiwan". It muddies the conversation and I constantly have to explain to people that there are two governments/countries over there, one from 1912 and one from 1949.
The ROC has existed since 1912 and has only occupied Taiwan since 1945 (some claim since 1952 and the Treaty of San Francisco). The ROC has been an independent state with continuous diplomatic recognition since 1912. It does not need to declare independence. I just take issue with people calling the ROC "Taiwan" as it gives ammo to PRC shills who intentionally muddy the conversation with their claim that "Taiwan is a part of China" where the term "China" is ambiguous or referencing the "One China" principle which the US doesn't even recognize (acknowledges the existence of, but does not adhere to).
...Calling it "Republic of China" is straight up saying "[this area] is a part of China". Naming it "Taiwan" is giving it an identity independent of China.
You are using "China" to refer to the PRC which is misleading and muddies the conversation. I'm against calling the PRC "China" as much as I am against calling the ROC "Taiwan". Please use the full name or the acronym to avoid ambiguity.
- a military
- a government
- a language
- a judicial system
- foreign relations, however hampered they are by the Communist party
It also happens to be in a state of cold war with their nominally Communist neighbour.
If it's not a country, nothing is.
"Taiwan" passports say "Republic of China" on them.
My passport stamps from when I entered Taiwan say "Republic of China".
Taiwan is just _one_ of the islands that the ROC controls. Calling the ROC "Taiwan" muddies the conversation and helps the PRC narrative that "Taiwan is a province of China".
The ROC has been a de facto independent country since 1912 when it was founded. The existence of the PRC since 1949 has not changed that.
Common names are common for a reason!
I'd note that you linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_Armed_Forces to support your argument.
But the very first sentence of that page is "The Republic of China Armed Forces, commonly known as the Taiwanese Armed Forces..."
"China" is a bad brand name nowadays. I really wish they could formally rename their country with a resumption of the civil war.
Here's the TAIWAN ALLIES INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT INITIATIVE (TAIPEI) ACT OF 2019. It starts: To express United States support for Taiwan's diplomatic alliances around the world.
The name "Republic of China" (as opposed to "People's Republic of China") isn't used. However there are sentences like this:
Since the election of President Tsai Ing-wen as President of Taiwan in 2016, the Government of the People's Republic of China has intensified its efforts to pressure Taiwan.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/167...
South Beach?
LA?
Vegas?
Source: I've lived in that area.
That's misleading. The US de facto recognizes Taiwan, and the only reason it doesn't recognize it de jure is that the PRC would formally cut off relations if it did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_in_Taiwan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taipei_Economic_and_Cultural_R...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwa...
Like, it's ok that we sell Taiwan fighter jets and tanks to defend themselves against China, as long as we say that Taiwan belongs to china.
I'll never understand politics.
Taiwan is a unique proposition, and eviscerating the WHO for having trouble with it without acknowledging that everywhere else has the same problem makes it look like the person is either ignorant or has some agenda.
The existence of political factors (which are not the fault of the WHO) makes it less than perfect, but people using it as a cudgel against the organization are (not you necessarily) are insinuating that the WHO's failure to be perfect thus makes it scientifically useless. This is an obvious bad-faith argument deployed for rather obvious political ends.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_United_Nations#R...
The only reason it doesn't recognize it is because US kicked RoC out of UN by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758
> The only reason it doesn't recognize it is because US kicked RoC out of UN by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758
Huh? The Wikipedia article you linked says the US voted "No" on Resolution 2758. I don't see how you can claim the US did the kicking by opposing the resolution that did the kicking.
That article also states that before that vote...
> ...the United States was proposing that while the credentials of the PRC representatives would be accepted and the PRC would be seated as China’s representative with a seat on the Security Council, the ROC would continue to enjoy representation in the General Assembly.
Keep in mind RoC was one of the five founding members of UN.
But the question isn't just the recognition of Taiwan/ROC, in isolation by itself. It also includes the recognition of the PRC, the existence of which is a fact on the ground that's difficult to ignore.
Sure the US could have continued to plug its ears and ignore the PRC, but that was untenable and becoming increasingly so. It's pretty clear that the US's preferred option would have been formal recognition of both Taiwan and the PRC, but it doesn't always get what it wants, so it has had to contort its official position and practice deliberate ambiguity, instead.
It specifically says "the US should advocate for Taiwan’s membership in all international organisations in which statehood is not a requirement"
Note the statehood is not a requirement thing.
I think it would be great if Taiwan had observer status at WHO, and I think the TAIPEI Act should help towards this. But the point remains: Taiwan is an unusual entity, and WHO is far from alone in having trouble with this.
"(3) Taiwan is a free, democratic, and prosperous nation of 23,000,000 people and an important contributor to peace and stability around the world."
And the US is still connected to Taiwan and provides them military support. And we have a $250M 'de facto' embassy there.
Honestly, I'm so shocked and dismayed by your comment, that I think I want to stop participating on Hacker News. Your perspective is relativism ad infinitum. This is the thing I fight most against.
This isn't a community for hackers & painters anymore. Eternal Relativism is impossible to win against.
Bringing the behavior of US-- a sovereign state-- into the discussion is completely inappropriate.
This statement shows the power of western media. Yes the WHO doesn't. Neither does any other political entity in the world.
Neither the US, nor the 14 of 193 UN members that has diplomatic relations with the ROC, nor does "Taiwan" itself recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation.
Even the most pro-US pro-independence party in Taiwan, the DPP, does not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation. According to Taiwan, Taiwan is a province of the ROC which includes the mainland and the present country of Mongolia.
And you would want the health agency of the UN to be the first in the world to spearhead tectonic geopolitical changes because the corporate media tells you so?
Also the WHO spokesman went on an interview with Hong Kong media and refused to even answer a question about Taiwan, then hung up the call after pretending to not hear the question.
This is not corporate media telling me so (don't even know why you would claim that). This is plain facts on video and email available for everyone to see.
And since you brought up the December 31st email, that only amplifies my point about corporate media if you formed your opinion on editorials obfuscating the primary source rather than the primary source itself. Here's the actual email from Taiwan https://twitter.com/mohw_taiwan/status/1248915057188024320
"News resources today indicate that at least seven atypical pneumonia cases were reported in Wuhan, CHINA. Their health authorities replied to the media that the cases were believed not SARS; however the samples are still under examination, and cases have been isolated for treatment. I would greatly appreciate it if you have relevant information to share with us. Thank you very much in advance for your attention to this matter."
It's so embarrassingly not "a warning" from Taiwan that Taiwan has been busy deleting the original email from their press release archives and rerouting permalinks to their emails (still available on their tweet at.cdc.tw/23iq82) to a further obfuscating rebuttal.
Meanwhile, people who just read corporate media headlines and don't bother with primary sources or critical thinking goes around telling people "Taiwan emailed WHO in December warning about China lying about the human-to-human transmission".
> In China, the term “atypical pneumonia” is commonly used to refer to SARS, a disease transmitted between humans caused by coronavirus.
"transmitted between humans" - what WHO claimed does not happen even though Taiwan warned them about it.
> patients had been isolated for treatment
That's also referring to the human-to-human transmission part of COVID - which WHO denied. This is the warning Taiwan had sent in December and WHO lied and went even further to state that they never received any email from Taiwan. It's literally in the email. I don't know how much clearer they can get.
> Meanwhile, people who just read corporate media headlines and don't bother with primary sources or critical thinking goes around telling people "Taiwan emailed WHO in December warning about China lying about the human-to-human transmission".
You trying to claim I don't have critical thinking makes you sound arrogant. I don't want to engage in flame wars on HN so it's not replying to it further.
> recognize Taiwan as a sevreign nation
I'm then responding to your
> Taiwan emailed WHO in December warning about China lying about the human-to-human transmission
Very bold statements. If you're saying that the WHO should have changed their January 14 statement from "there are no clear evidence of human to human transmission" to "there are clear evidence of human to human transmission because Taiwan stated:
News resources today indicate that at least seven atypical pneumonia cases were reported in Wuhan, CHINA. Their health authorities replied to the media that the cases were believed not SARS; however the samples are still under examination, and cases have been isolated for treatment. I would greatly appreciate it if you have relevant information to share with us. Thank you very much in advance for your attention to this matter."
then I suppose there aren't really anything anyone can say that'll be of interest to you.
> "spearhead tectonic geopolitical changes because the corporate media tells you so"
and I was merely pointing out that the HK media is the one which pointed out how WHO ignored Taiwan's warning. Then you went around stating I "don't bother with primary sources or critical thinking" which is just a silly ad hom attack and not worthy on HN. I almost always read the primary source and that's exactly what I had done with the Taiwan vs WHO thing. I don't just watch the media and believe everything they say, I have seen too many examples of them not reporting the facts. Also I haven't even seen much coverage of the Taiwan situation in the western media so I have no idea how you are making that conclusion. Most of the western media is too busy defending China anyway.
> then I suppose there aren't really anything anyone can say that'll be of interest to you
Considering you think the Taiwan's email wasn't enough to justify a different statement from WHO than parroting China's talking points, why do you think WHO lied about them never receiving any correspondence from Taiwan warning about human-to-human transmission?
Also maybe calling people names and thinking you are somehow better than the person you are interacting with is a tactic you wish to employ though I don't think it's suited for HN discussions. Let's not resort to that.
It might be a good source of information for governments around the world looking to take the most neutral diplomatic and balanced stance on every issue.
Not sure why those same incentives should then be influencing what people are allowed to talk about on the internet.
Your statement misses the point a bit though. I don't think anyone's arguing that WHO/UN is a source for (political) 'truth'. It's just a medical advisory body. If the UN was the source of 'truth', Israel might not exist in the present form anymore since half of all UN resolutions against single countries are against Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolut.... The fact that no one is likely to know that is precisely because what you're arguing against is already not true.
For reference, Taiwan's handling of the pandemic has been nothing short of amazing. Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/taiwan/
---
[0]: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/covid19...
Granted.
> and some of its recommendations, such as being against international travel bans, may be influenced by politics over public health.
This is the part that's not proven.
> American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.
> When that failed, they turned to threats, according to diplomats and government officials who took part in the discussions. Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was the first to find itself in the cross hairs.
> The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced.
Importantly, however:
> In the end, the Americans’ efforts were mostly unsuccessful. It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them.