Geneva has lessons

By Chang Chih-hsung

It was on a cool, rainy day in Geneva when Taiwan's latest bid to join the World Health Organization (WHO) failed. During the afternoon plenary meeting on the opening day of the 58th World Health Assembly (WHA), the proposal to include the admission of Taiwan as a WHA observer in the provisional agenda was defeated.

The health ministers from Chad and Malawi spoke passionately in support of Taiwan, whereas the health ministers from Pakistan and China expressed opposition.

It was truly a sad day for Taiwan, as "health for all" is a basic human right, and should not be trampled upon by international politics.

The relentless interference by the Chinese government in the Taiwanese people's access to the WHO by the Taiwanese people is furthermore apparent from the statement that a Chinese official made during the meeting. His reiteration of the"one China" principle and claim that "Taiwan is a province of China" do not reflect reality, which is that Taiwan is a separate state.

The official's reference to the recent trips by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong in his speech to show China's goodwill toward Taiwan should further warn us.

China's strategy is to first divide and then to conquer Taiwan.

After Taiwan's failure to gain observership in the WHA, we should hold no false hope that China is ready to give Taiwan more breathing room in the international arena. Lessons we can learn from our Geneva experience are manifold.

First, the government of Taiwan should work ever more diligently to preserve, protect and defend the nation's freedom and democracy. It is of utmost importance to "correct our nation's name" to reflect the true political reality of Taiwan.

Furthermore, reforming our old Constitution or creating a new one will launch us into a new path that will give Taiwan more international recognition and the freedom to become a new member of the international community.

Second, opposition parties need to work with the governing party in passing legislation that is vital to safeguarding our democracy and strengthening our national defense. With regards to cross-strait relations, a consensus needs to be built to guide our future dealings with China.

Third, Taiwanese medical professionals should expand their involvement in international organizations. The most up-to-date medical knowledge and technology are presented in international medical meetings. Our participation in these activities guarantees that our medical personnel obtain the best and most current medical knowledge to benefit all Taiwanese.

Fourth, overseas Taiwanese should coordinate their grassroots efforts to solicit support for Taiwan from representatives in their host nations. Areas that are in urgent need of attention are the EU, Southeast Asia and South America.

Last, the people of Taiwan should hold their leaders and representatives accountable, through elections, for the legislative impasse that jeopardizes our national security or the cross-strait negotiations that compromise our sovereignty.

The lessons we learned from Geneva are of great importance. Failure to heed the warning can destroy Taiwan's very existence.

Chang Chih-hsiung

Montreat, North Carolina

Definitions differ on `two sides, one China'

By Huang Yu-lin

The communique released on the meeting between China's President Hu Jintao and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong speaks of a "two sides, one China" consensus for future talks. But there has been considerable discussion as to how this formula should be interpreted. There is the positive interpretation, which believes that Beijing's position has shifted, and the conservative interpretation, which believes that Beijing's position is essentially unchanged.

Chang Hsien-yao, director of the PFP's policy research center said that the use of the term "two sides" indicates that Beijing accepts the fact of the two sides of the Strait being separate, and that the "one China" refers to "each side having its own interpretation."

Hong Kong's pro-China Wen Wei Po said the communique confirms the interpretation of the so-called "1992 consensus" as being "two sides, one China," and that this is "in line with both history and the current situation." The Washington Post said the communique accepts "each side having its own interpretation," and that this, manifestly, is a concession by Beijing.

However, the Asian Wall Street Journal said that while Beijing has acknowledged that there are different interpretations of "one China," this is not actually a major concession. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Su Chi, has said that in this formulation, "one China" has precedence over "each side with its own interpretation," and Shao Chung-hai, a professor at National Chengchi University, dismissed the formulation as nothing new.

The Presidential Office has inclined toward the conservative position, believing that accepting the formulation would be to accept the "one China" principle.

How should we assess these divergent views?

According to reports by the Xinhua News Agency, there are two aspects to the interpretation of the formula in the communique. The first is that it is necessary to respect the so called "1992 consensus," and second that on the premise that both sides uphold the "one China" principle, as stated in the "1992 consensus," cross-strait dialogue on an equal footing can be resumed. Some media have interpreted the first aspect as a concession by Beijing, because it suggests that it has accepted "once China, with each side having its own interpretation."

But if this is a concession that benefits Taiwan, why was the so-called "1992 consensus" never put into writing? If that "consensus" is seen as being the same as "two sides, one China," and interpreted as both sides upholding the "one China" principle, this is just a sleight-of-hand to make the "consensus" equivalent to the "one China" principle. In fact, "one China, with each side having its own interpretation" may well have been China's goal at the 1992 Hong Kong talks, allowing it to sow dissent in Taiwan, while engaging in a diplomatic struggle against Taiwan on the international stage.

The "Anti-Secession" Law states that: "There is only one China in the world. Both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China. China's sovereignty and territorial integrity brook no division."

In blocking Taiwan's application to join the World Health Organization, Beijing made use of KMT Chairman Lien Chan's and Soong's acceptance of "one China," saying that "Taiwan is part of China" and that "Tai-wan is not a sovereign nation."

In this case, can we accept "two sides, one China" or "one China, with each side having its own interpretation?" Only after China clearly accepts the existence of the Republic of China.

Huang Yu-lin is an associate professor at National Chiao Tung University and a former chief secretary of the Straits Exchange Foundation.