Neither does the US. Taiwan is only recognised by IIRC 12 natinos, mostly small island states. This has become another weird internet talking point as international recognition pretty much unanmiously switched to the PRC in the 1970s.
> Neither does the US. Taiwan is only recognised by IIRC 12 natinos, mostly small island states. This has become another weird internet talking point as international recognition pretty much unanmiously switched to the PRC in the 1970s.
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.
My guess it’s okey to do that because Chinese internal politics is based on PR which is populistic in nature. What is the proportion of people who would go out looking for lists of American exports into Taiwan vs the proportion of people who would hear Taiwan being pronounced by the president of the US?
> 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.
> The "No" is a gesture. If US was serious about the "No' where won't even be a Nixon visit or Resolution of any kind.
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.
Well, the WHO probably reads what comes to it from Taiwan, but they don't publicly give lip service to it because that would piss of china, the very large country whose cooperation they needed given that the apparent origin of the pandemic there.
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.
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.
It's the awkward way they one representative handled a question on Taiwan. Pretending he didn't hear the question. I think it speaks more to the unwillingness of a world health organisation to even discuss politically dangerous topics.
>I think it speaks more to the unwillingness of a world health organisation to even discuss politically dangerous topics.
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.
The mandate of the WHO is to improve world health. Thus avoiding politically sensitive issues is correct if that helps the organization to reach its goals.
I saw that video and was shocked that a representative from WHO would behave that way, pretending not to hear the question and hanging up... utterly childish behaviour. I mean, how the hell am I supposed to take an organisation like that seriously?
Politics are a fact of international relations. It's childish to think an international organization that depends on its member countries for funding can just completely ignore that or blow it off, rather than eat shit occasionally in order to work around it.
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.
Straw man - you're making an argument against a point I didn't make or even insinuate.
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!".
Pretty much all global institutions have informal or de-facto relationships with Taiwan, that's besides the point. Not recognizing Taiwan formally has been the position of just about any institution or country on the globe for 50 years.
The TAIPEI Act doesn't change the US's position on recognition as a country.
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.
All due respect, but this is lunacy. The way the guy reacted then hung up is unconscionable. The WHO is clearly corrupted by China's money.
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.
Edit: since people are misunderstanding this post, I am 100% pro-ROC and anti-PRC. I wish the ROC could rename itself to something else without triggering a PRC invasion. Check my comment history. I'm 100% pro-ROC and I support the ROC's continued (since 1912) independence as a sovereign entity. 中華民國萬歲
"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.
Sometimes, I'll hear someone talk about a place called "Virginia", and I'll have no idea what they are talking about. Eventually, I figure out through context clues that they are referring to the Commonwealth of Virginia. I wish they would save me the time of having to constantly explain why they are wrong.
Bad analogy. This would be like people calling Rhode Island "Newport". The official state name is (the State of) "Rhode Island" (and Providence Plantations), and calling it by the name of one of its territories makes no sense.
Every one of the many Taiwanese people I know refer to it as Taiwan, too. It's very rare to hear anyone refer to it as the ROC, unless in the context of specifically making a distinction from the PRC, or in a formal document.
Right, calling the ROC and all of its holdings "Taiwan" just muddies the conversation and gives ammo to PRC shills claiming "Taiwan is a province of China" which deliberately uses the name of a single ROC holding and the ambiguous "China" term.
Do you tell your friends about your summer trip to the Republic of Korea? Or were you visiting the Kingdom of Belgium that year? Do those friends invite you to visit their hometowns in the French Republic, or the Federal Republic of Germany? Maybe you can stop at the Grand Dutchy of Luxembourg along the way from one to the other?
When shills from an aggressor nation in a highly politicized international conflict intentionally inject ambiguity into the names used by the states on either side of the conflict, you should strive to be as articulate as possible to avoid misunderstandings.
People commonly refer to the United States of America as "America" which is odd since there's also Central and South America. Being common doesn't equal being correct, and in this case the ambiguity is used by the aggressor state (PRC) to get people to believe a certain narrative. I'll continue to inform folks where I can as most people aren't aware of the situation between the ROC and PRC. I don't care about downvotes on this site _especially_ if it's because I'm stating facts that people do not like.
Taiwan is the common name for the state that officially goes by the name Republic of China. It's de-facto administrative boundaries have been the island of Taiwan for the last 70 years. That's long enough for most people stop caring all that much. Many countries in todays world were still colonies back then.
The ROC had existed continuously since over 30 years before it occupied the island of Taiwan. What about people in Kinmen? Do you consider them part of "Taiwan"? Please use the official government name to stop aiding the PRC in its misinformation campaign.
"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.
On the military and foreign relation really matters in this list. In my understanding, the only reason these two still exists is because US is backing them up since WW2.
False. And don't use the term "Chinese" as it's ambiguous. This is not what the PRC claims.
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).
> 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"
...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.
No, the current situation is that there are two governments both claiming to represent "China", not that the ROC is part of what you are calling "China" (PRC). The ROC can't amend its constitution to rename itself without triggering a PRC invasion.
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.
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?
Taiwan emailed WHO in December warning about China lying about the human-to-human transmission not happening and WHO refused to acknowledge Taiwan's reports. Then on January 14th, WHO tweeted saying human to human transmission was not possible. Then when it came out that they were wrong, they claimed Taiwan never emailed them. Taiwan brought receipts with the emails.
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.
Seems like a goalpost shift since I was just responding to your claim about "Taiwan sovereignty".
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".
You are proving my very point. The twitter email you linked specifically says "atypical pneumonia".
> 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.
I'm afraid this is another goalpost shift. Remember we started with
> 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.
You keep saying I am moving the goalpost but I am not. My original comment was in reply to the last statement where you said:
> "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.
This is why using WHO as the body for 'truth' is idiocy. They have a hundred different incentives pulling them in different directions. Automatically making it a poor 'source of truth' or, even worse, what is not okay to talk about.
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.
I think I generally agree. I'm very against YouTube content control whether it's censoring gun contents or taking down pro-China channels during the Hong Kong protests.
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.
Taiwan data was being counted with China's. This means that many of the early safeguards Taiwan was taking to protect their country was overlooked as it's effectiveness didn't show up in the global trends reported by the WHO. In fact, when specifically questioned by the press on how Taiwan was so successful at containment and preventing the spread, the WHO leadership acted like they had never heard the term Taiwan before.
So has Newfoundland's response to the pandemic been extremely effective [0]. Where is Newfoundland's data being published by the WHO site? Here is what I was able to find as far as case statistics: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati... No mention of Newfoundland in that document that I can find.
Is that quantifiably true? There are the same number of deaths in Shanghai and Beijing as Taiwan and the population is about the same size while Shanghai and Beijing have much less "travel restriction" from Taiwan. Why should the WHO, an agency of the UN, make an extremely aggressive political and undemocratic move and special case Taiwan when only 14 of the 193 members of the UN have diplomatic relations with Taiwan and when it performed average vis a vis other Chinese provinces.
It's evidence that the WHO is a political organization, and some of its recommendations, such as being against international travel bans, may be influenced by politics over public health.
> 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.