關於 world religion population ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

宰牲節 (Eid al-Adha) 快樂！宰牲節是穆斯林的重要節日，象徵犧牲奉獻的精神。世界各地的伊斯蘭教徒會在宰牲節這一天挑選獻祭的動物，象徵性地提醒人們一生中所需的真正奉獻。在美國，伊斯蘭教是第三大宗教，僅次於基督教和猶太教。數據顯示，目前有超過350萬民穆斯林住在美國，相當於美國總人口的1.1%。

而在台灣，台北印尼穆斯林社群去年此時在台北車站外進行宰牲節禮拜，同時不忘保持安全距離。然而今年由於疫情緣故，宰牲節只能在家或在線上慶祝。台灣持續擴大穆斯林友善環境，未來若是防疫限制解除，住在台灣或來台灣拜訪的穆斯林社群，將能使用火車站、圖書館和旅遊景點等公共場所新設置的祈禱室。而且你知道嗎？2020年8月時，台北市北投健康管理醫院也成為台灣第二家取得清真認證的醫療機構！更多台灣促進宗教自由的進展和努力請參考美國國務院「台灣 2020 年國際宗教自由報告」: https://bit.ly/3kAsscL 。

Happy Eid al-Adha, the Festival of the Sacrifice. Many Muslims around the world sacrifice an animal on this day as a symbolic reminder of the real sacrifice required throughout life. In the United States, Islam is now the third largest religion, after Christianity and Judaism. It is estimated that over 3.5 million Muslims live in the United States, about 1.1 percent of the total U.S. population.

In Taiwan last year, members of Taipei’s Indonesian Muslim community gathered safely outside Taipei Main Station for Eid-al Adha prayers. However, this year the holy day will have to be celebrated from home or online. When pandemic restrictions lift, Muslims living in or visiting Taiwan can take advantage of expanded prayer rooms in public places such as train stations, libraries, and tourist destinations Did you know, in August 2020 Taipei Beitou Health Management Hospital became the second halal-certified medical facility in Taiwan? For more information about Taiwan’s efforts to promote religious freedom check out Taiwan’s section in the 2020 International Religious Freedom Report: https://bit.ly/3eC4mKL.

Is a U.S.-China hot war imminent?｜Lee Yee

In July, Pompeo claimed the American policy towards China is harsher than the one towards the Soviet Union in the Cold War era. The approach has been shifted from “listening to its words and watching its deeds” to “ignoring its words and only watching its deeds”. Recent developments show that the U.S. is striding closer and closer to a complete de-linkage with China. The recall of the ambassador from China was just a prelude. What followed was the U.S. official interpretation that “one China policy” is not equivalent to “one China principle”, plus the emphasis that “the U.S. holds no specific standpoint towards the sovereignty of Taiwan”. Furthermore, during the visit of Krach, U.S. Under Secretary of State, Tsai Ing-wen stated that “Taiwan has the determination to take the critical step”. Adding fuel to this, Hsiao Bi Khim, Taiwan’s delegate at the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the U.S., introduced herself as the “Taiwan Ambassador to the U.S.” on Twitter. In view of all these, is the U.S. going to establish diplomatic relation with Taiwan? Will it turn out to be the “October surprise” before the U.S. presidential election? In response, China dispatched fighter jets to violate the airspace of Taiwan, and as “Global Times” put it, “this was not a gesture of warning, but an actual combat exercise of attacking Taiwan”. In return, Taiwan authority urged China “not to underestimate its armed forces' resolve in safeguarding Taiwan”. As tension keeps building up across the Strait, will the U.S. intervene and finally trigger a U.S.-China hot war?

For the last few months, while analyzing the situation, quite a few observers have drawn upon the “Thucydides trap” originated from an ancient Greek historian. According to this theory, when an emerging power threatens to displace an existing great power as an international hegemony, there will be an unavoidable tendency towards war.

To be frank, these observers may have well overestimated the strength of China. Thanks to its huge population, China has become the second largest economic entity in the world. But we are now living in an era that national strength is rather defined by technological advancement. In reality, China is militarily inferior to Russia and technologically lagging far behind major western countries. To put it simply, China is yet to be capable of challenging the American dominance.

Back in the 1980s, in the heyday of its economic development, Japan has significantly outperformed the U.S. in the capital market, and some American scholars have come to the “Japan No.1” conclusion. Despite this, there was never a sign of military confrontation between U.S. and Japan. A decade later, the formation of the European Union posed new challenge to the American supremacy. But again, the two did not come anywhere close to a war. So why has the emergence of China, which in fact lacks the capabilities to overwhelm the U.S., aroused much anticipation of war?

Rudolph Rummel, an American professor of political studies, have made a thorough analysis on the correlation between wars and democracy in human history. After humans surviving a thousand years of darkness, it was not until the independence of the U.S. in 1776 that unveiled a democratic institution with public elections, separation of powers, multi-party system as well as freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly. After more than a hundred years, in 1900 there were only 13 democratic countries in the world. And after another decade, in 2015 the rose to 130, and dictatorial states without meaningful elections have become the minority.

According to Rummel’s statistics, there were 371 wars between 1816 and 2005. Among them, 205 were fought between two dictatorial countries and 166 between democratic and dictatorial ones. Interestingly, there had not been a single war between democratic countries. The conclusion is all too obvious: if there were only democratic states on earth, wars would not happen.

And here lies the fundamental reason why the “Thucydides Trap” has been more valid in the old days when dictatorial systems prevailed, but has failed to apply in contemporary cases between two democratic countries. And it also explains why the competitions between the U.S. and Japan or the EU have not led to any war, while the challenge from China will probably end up differently.

In a democratic system, to wage a war requires a consensus among the government, legislature, media and public opinion. It is rather a matter of the people’s collective will than the ruler’s subjective decision. Whereas within a dictatorial structure, no approval from the legislature is needed, media and public opinion are never respected and judicial challenge simply does not exist. A dictator or oligarch can just go to war at will.

From a dictator’s point of view, whether to enter a war or not is not subject to external circumstance, but the domestic status of his ruling. When a dictator’s position gets shaken by severe economic downturn and widespread public discontent, he will try to divert domestic dissatisfaction by means of foreign maneuvers. The dictator tends to single out those “non-conforming groups”, as so identified by the “little pink” Chinese patriots, and tries bullying them, as what the CCP is doing in India, Hong Kong and Inner Mongolia. The objective is to distract attention with extreme nationalism. More often than not, stirring up external instability has become a tactic to secure domestic stability of the dictator’s rule.

Perhaps a shrewd dictator will weigh up the strength of his counterpart before taking action. Nevertheless, the intrinsically defective system may hinder the dictator from understanding the reality and accessing different views. And personal intellectual and intelligent inadequacies may also breed unrealistic self-inflating belief. The resulted stupidity can make a tragedy more imminent than everyone may expect.

#獨家 世界衛生組織將台灣問題相關聲明稿下架！
　
世界衛生組織(WHO)在台灣時間今(6)日凌晨以 "How the World Health Organization works with all people, everywhere" 為題發了一篇聲明稿，試圖為排除台灣參與 WHO 辯解。不過這篇聲明卻在不到 24 小時內就被 WHO 網站下架，直至晚間6時30分仍呈現「找不到網頁」（This page cannot be found），《沃草》透過世衛網站暫存紀錄，獨家為大家揭露該篇聲明內容。
　
聲明中，WHO仍稱與台灣相關的事務為「中國台灣事務」（ Taiwan, China issues），針對全球的種種批評，WHO 仍稱之為誤解（misunderstandings），並聲稱是有些人將「技術性的維護全球公共健康任務」與「決定 WHO 會員資格的權限」混淆，似乎打算以此來回應國際要求讓台灣加入 WHO 的呼聲。
　
聲明中多處重申 WHO 在 3 月 29 日公布的聲明（https://waa.tw/Qsu21N），認為 WHO 與台灣設有聯絡點、台灣專家曾參與 WHO 會議等，並表示台灣參與世界衛生大會的觀察員資格是在一次次的會員國投票中遭到否決，以及提起讓中華人民共和國取代中華民國聯合國席位的聯合國 2758 決議文，表示世界衛生大會遵循此決議及其中的一中原則。
　
似乎是為回應全球對 WHO 應對流行病能力的質疑，WHO 在聲明中表示「有些人可能認為 WHO 成員組成影響我們維護世界安全的能力，但更重要的是要了解我們的治理方式和實踐方式。」
　　　
暫存檔網址：https://waa.tw/dohkIm
聲明截圖：https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VP-KMgP4wb6Oy8jQkOjoSu-DWGS3Xqkb/view
原新聞稿網址：https://waa.tw/lFKd8M
　
（以下為世界衛生組織聲明原文）
標題：Update: How the World Health Organization works with all people, everywhere
發表時間：5 April 2020 Statement

內文：
In recent months we have seen misunderstandings in social media and the news media about how WHO manages global public health issues. In particular, there are a lot of questions about Taiwan, China issues. Some people are confusing WHO’s technical global public health mandate, with the mandate of countries to determine WHO’s membership. Countries decide this. The WHO Secretariat focuses on keeping the world safe.

WHO works to promote the health of all people, everywhere. Indeed, one of our overarching goals is Universal Health Coverage. #healthforall. We are an organization with a staff of physicians, scientists, researchers and public health experts who are committed to serving all people regardless of nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, gender.

This includes the people of Taiwan. We serve them through regular interactions with their experts and authorities on vital public health issues. This has been the case over many years, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is understandable that some people might think that the composition of WHO’s membership affects our ability to keep the world safe. But it is important to understand both how we are governed and how we operate in practice.

WHO is part of the United Nations, whose membership is the mandate of countries. In 1971, countries of the world participating in the United Nations General Assembly recognized the People’s Republic of China as “the only legitimate representative of China,” in effect, a one-China policy. That is contained in UNGA Resolution 2758. In 1972, the World Health Assembly decided in WHA Resolution 25.1 to follow that.

Every year, members have a chance to discuss important proposals during the World Health Assembly, where rules and policies governing WHO are decided. For example, at different times, some countries have proposed giving Taiwan’s authorities a special status – that of observing the annual World Health Assembly.

There have been 14 times over the last 22 years (1997-2006; and in 2008, 2017, 2018, 2019) when countries discussed whether a delegation from Taiwan could attend the World Health Assembly as an observer. Each time the countries decided against it by consensus – except in 1997 and 2004 when there were votes: (by 128 votes to 19 in 1997; and by 133 votes to 25 in 2004). In 2007, the issue wasn’t observer status, but membership, and countries decided against considering that by a vote of 148 to 17.

There have been occasions when it was clear that there was general support among WHO countries for Taiwan to take an observer seat at the World Health Assembly. Between 2009 and 2016, it did so under the name “Chinese Taipei.”

But having a seat at the WHA, or not having a seat at the WHA, does not affect, in any way, whether an area or population benefits from WHO expertise and guidance. WHO helps all people, everywhere.

WHO and Taiwan’s health experts interact throughout the year on vital public health and scientific issues, according to well-established arrangements.

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, interactions have been stepped up, both through existing channels and new ones as well.

Here are examples of WHO-Taiwan interactions around the coronavirus pandemic:

-- There is an established International Health Regulations (IHR) Point of Contact (POC) for Taiwan. Taiwan’s POC receives IHR (2005) communications, provides IHR information updates from Taiwan directly to WHO Headquarters, and has access to the IHR Event Information Site (EIS) system. The EIS system is a password-protected database and information exchange platform supporting the IHR. It is the well-established platform for all IHR communications, back and forth, between WHO and IHR contacts.

-- Health experts from Taiwan participate in two of the key WHO networks set up in January 2020 to support WHO work in the global COVID-19 response. Three experts from Taiwan are part of the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Network: two are part of the WHO Clinical Network. Every week, they join some 60 to 80 other experts from around the globe through a WHO-hosted teleconference, working to advance our knowledge and guidance in this response.

-- Two public health experts from Taiwan participated in the Global Research and Innovation Forum organized by WHO on 11-12 February 2020. They took part, alongside other world scientists, in considering critical research questions and in finding ways to work together to advance the response.

-- Taiwan’s Field Epidemiology Training Program is a member of the Training Programs in Epidemiology and Public Health Interventions Network (also known as “TEPHINET”). WHO shares Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network alerts and requests for assistance with TEPHINET, and those messages are cascaded to the TEPHINET members.

-- WHO, through its technical lead, has directly briefed health authorities from Taiwan and has offered again.

--Taiwan’s health experts and authorities have open access to developments, guidance and other materials through the WHO’s website (www.who.int) and other digital platforms.

--They can access the www.OpenWHO.org platform, which hosts open online courses for decisionmakers and responders around the world. During the COVID-19 pandemic, OpenWHO usage has reached more than 1 million.

--WHO has a designated contact point with their office in Geneva. Through this channel, general questions are handled and when technical concerns arise, WHO technical responses are coordinated.

--WHO also interacts with Taiwan’s health authorities through the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.

Importantly, the COVID-19 caseload in Taiwan is low relative to population. We continue to follow developments closely, and WHO is taking lessons learned from all areas.

Interactions with Taiwan during the response to the pandemic is not exceptional. Here are some examples of regular interactions with Taiwan’s health authorities and WHO, over many years, through well-established arrangements, and across many different global health concerns:

Over the course of 2019, Taiwan’s experts were invited to attend 9 WHO technical meetings. They attended 8 of these meetings, contributing to WHO expert processes on issues including immunization, drug-resistant TB, assistive technologies, vaccine safety and SDG targets on NCDs and Mental Health. Prior to the Covid-19 emergency, work was underway for more expert participation from Taiwan in 2020.

On influenza, Taiwan vaccine manufacturer Adimmune contributes to the WHO Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework (PIP Framework) and preparations are underway for concluding an agreement between WHO and Adimmune under the PIP Framework for pandemic influenza vaccine products;
In the fight against cancer, experts from Taiwan have contributed to key publications issued by the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer;
In support of the International Health Regulations, an expert from Taiwan has been appointed to the IHR Expert Roster; and
On a range of other issues, from WHO pre-qualification practices for pharmaceutical manufacturers to malaria, there are exchanges with WHO on practical and technical issues.

It is fair to say that the contribution of Taiwan’s health experts to WHO, and their interactions with us, are well-developed and broad-based. And these interactions add value to the work of WHO and to global health.