A welcome precedent was set on Wednesday when Taiwan’s representative to Canada, David Lee (李大維), was invited to address a Canadian parliamentary committee in an official capacity — something that had not happened since Canada severed diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1970.
Addressing the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Lee touched on the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) between Taiwan and China and, as expected, toed the line from Taipei on recent developments such as Taiwan’s presence as an observer at the World Health Assembly (WHA) earlier this month.
It is nice to see Canada, if only symbolically, supporting a more visible international presence for Taiwan, and the invitation extended to Lee was a move in that direction. More subtly, Ottawa was sending a signal that it supports the cross-strait policies of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
Much like Washington in the years under pro-independence president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), Ottawa saw the Taiwan question as an irritant that risked causing difficulties — if not war — in the Asia-Pacific region.
(Canada’s own problems with Quebec separatists also dampened whatever support there might have been in Ottawa for Taiwanese independence, while its support for Kosovo’s independence, conversely, likely stemmed from its NATO membership.)
Coming on the heels of the WHA and amid growing exchanges across the Taiwan Strait, Lee’s presence in parliament could be seen as a reward from Ottawa for diminishing the risk of “unnecessary” conflict in Asia. During the “provocative” Chen years, Taiwan’s envoy to Canada would never have received such an invitation.
Canada, like many other countries, wants that problem to disappear, and has had little patience for such details as the erosion of democracy or opposition to the manner in which the Ma administration has engaged Beijing.
From a safe, though nearsighted, location on the other side of the world, Ma has been seen as defusing tensions in the Taiwan Strait and to be doing all the right, rational things. In light of this, one cannot expect that Lee would have been pressed by members of parliament to discuss, or volunteer to discuss, opposition to Ma’s measures.
Once the irritants of independence activism and opposition to Ma are taken out of the equation, it becomes easy to look at the future of the Taiwan Strait with optimism (as the meeting did) and to focus on everybody’s favorite “safe” question — trade.
Ironically, this is where Lee stumbled. He said that for Canadians, Taiwan was the shortest and best route to China. In other words, Taiwan was a means to an end — a mere stepping stone to the great Chinese market.
Lee didn’t have to say this. After all, Canada, whose trade relationship with the US is similar to that between Taiwan and China, would never say that it is the shortest and best route to the US.
Perhaps Lee does not understand what international space means, or that it actually reinforces a country’s sovereignty. Despite the proximity and cultural similarities, Taiwan is more than a mere pathway to China.
Lee was offered a rare opportunity to speak for Taiwan abroad in an official capacity, something that had not happened in 39 years. His undignified response, sadly, reinforces the view — unashamedly polished by the Ma administration — that Taiwan is too weak to stand on its feet and that it will readily go down on all fours so that others can walk on its back.
The irony is that a proper response from Lee would have encapsulated the very thing that irritated the international community under Chen: Taiwanese dignity.
J. Michael Cole is a writer based in Taipei.
Taiwan has lost Trump. Or so a former State Department official and lobbyist would have us believe. Writing for online outlet Domino Theory in an article titled “How Taiwan lost Trump,” Christian Whiton provides a litany of reasons that the William Lai (賴清德) and Donald Trump administrations have supposedly fallen out — and it’s all Lai’s fault. Although many of Whiton’s claims are misleading or ill-informed, the article is helpfully, if unintentionally, revealing of a key aspect of the MAGA worldview. Whiton complains of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s “inability to understand and relate to the New Right in America.” Many
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
Taiwan is to hold a referendum on Saturday next week to decide whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant, which was shut down in May after 40 years of service, should restart operations for as long as another 20 years. The referendum was proposed by the opposition Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and passed in the legislature with support from the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Its question reads: “Do you agree that the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should continue operations upon approval by the competent authority and confirmation that there are no safety concerns?” Supporters of the proposal argue that nuclear power
RSS