By Chia-Ping Liu
Director General
Taipei Economic and Cultural Office-Guam
HEALTH is often described as a universal right. The truth is, health relies on something far less ideal: cooperation. Diseases and emergency health crisis do not respect borders, and neither can the systems designed to prevent and respond to them. This reality highlights one persistent gap in global health governance that is increasingly difficult to justify — the exclusion of Taiwan.
At a time when the world faces overlapping pressures from emerging infectious diseases, aging populations, and the growing burden of chronic illness, global coordination is the backbone of effective public health. Yet Taiwan, a place with one of the most capable and responsive health systems in the world, remains largely shut out of key international platforms, including the World Health Organization and the World Health Assembly.
Taiwan has spent decades building a public health system defined by preparedness, innovation, and adaptability. Taiwan’s response to infectious diseases offers a clear example. After the SARS outbreak in 2003, Taiwan undertook significant reforms that included strengthening surveillance systems, integrating data across agencies, and expanding its public health workforce. Today, it operates a highly digital, real-time disease monitoring system that connects medical institutions, laboratories, and border controls. This system allows for early detection and rapid response, precisely the kind of capability the world needs more of.
Taiwan has made remarkable progress in eliminating hepatitis C, achieving key targets years ahead of global timelines. Its approach demonstrates how sustained, coordinated policy can deliver measurable outcomes by combining prevention, screening, and accessible treatment. These are not isolated successes. They are part of a broader pattern of evidence-based public health leadership.
Taiwan’s strengths extend beyond infectious disease control. Like many countries, Taiwan faces the rising challenge of noncommunicable diseases, like diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular conditions. Taiwan has responded by building integrated care systems that emphasize early detection, coordinated treatment, and long-term management. National programs link preventive screening with primary care, while data-driven tools, including artificial intelligence or AI, support risk prediction and personalized care. The goal is to intervene earlier, manage conditions effectively, and reduce long-term strain on the health system.
Digital infrastructure plays a central role in this work. Taiwan has invested heavily in electronic medical records, telemedicine, and cloud-based data systems that allow information to move securely and efficiently. Patients in remote areas can access specialist care through teleconsultations. Clinicians can review comprehensive medical histories in real time. The gradual rollout of electronic prescriptions has improved medication safety and reduced administrative burdens. These are practical improvements that equate to into better care, greater efficiency, and stronger health outcomes.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, Taiwan demonstrated how these systems function successfully under pressure. It moved quickly to assess risks, implement preventive measures, and share information. Taiwan also contributed beyond its borders, providing medical supplies, equipment, and technical support to countries in need. Its early warnings and subsequent actions reflected both the ability and a willingness to engage as a responsible member of the international community.
Yet, despite this track record, Taiwan’s participation in global health processes remains limited. Taiwan is excluded from many WHO technical meetings and information-sharing platforms. Its access to collaborative systems like those designed for pandemic preparedness, resource allocation, and data exchange is restricted or inconsistent. The reasons for this exclusion are political, but the consequences are global in terms of public health.
When a system designed to detect and respond to global threats leaves out a capable partner, it weakens itself. Information gaps emerge. Coordination becomes less efficient. Opportunities for early intervention are missed. Taiwan’s geographic position and its close monitoring of regional disease trends make it particularly valuable in identifying emerging threats. Its exclusion reduces the completeness of the global picture at exactly the moment clarity is most needed.
This is not simply about fairness, though that argument has merit. It is about effectiveness.
Global health security depends on timely information, shared expertise, and coordinated action. Taiwan has demonstrated that it can contribute meaningfully to all three areas. It has shared data on past outbreaks, collaborated with international partners, and supported global response efforts. Taiwan’s exclusion from full participation does not erase those contributions, but it does limit their impact.
Institutions like the WHO are most effective when they operate with a focus on health outcomes rather than political constraints. When participation is shaped by factors unrelated to public health capacity or need, the result is a system that is less comprehensive and less responsive.
The path forward does not require dramatic restructuring. It begins with practical steps. Allow Taiwan to participate meaningfully in technical meetings, ensuring access to information-sharing platforms, and restoring observer status at the World Health Assembly. These are modest measures, but their impact would be significant. They would strengthen collaboration, improve information flow, and enhance collective preparedness.
The past few years have made it very clear that global health systems are only as strong as their ability to work together. No single country, no matter how advanced, can manage these challenges in isolation. Inclusion is not a political concession. It is a functional necessity.
Taiwan has shown that it can offer a resilient health system, a commitment to transparency, and a willingness to contribute. The question is whether the global community are prepared to make full use of that capacity.
