This is where a person less concerned with the correct use of the terms designating logical fallacies might accuse you of a "false equivalence". Regardless, trying to reason by analogy on topics like this invites errors of oversimplification and generalization.
Staying on topic, you grossly misrepresented the situation by characterizing WHO's implicit endorsement of Taiwan's non-existance as a state as a matter of mere "argument over borders".
I feel that it is a gross representation to interpret the WHO's ''NEXT QUESTION PLEASE'' dodge to be an implicit endorsement of... A state of the world that doesn't exist?
Why do you think I feel that way? Why do you not feel that way about the example I outlined? Is it because one topic (Trump's criminality) is controversial in the Western world, while the other one (Taiwan's independence) is not?
Staying on topic, you grossly misrepresented the situation by characterizing WHO's implicit endorsement of Taiwan's non-existance as a state as a matter of mere "argument over borders".