This letter is in response to Chen I-chung's (
As a Canadian citizen born and living in Quebec, I experience the Quebec separatism problem daily. I found the headline, "Pragmatic path is the best solution," to be quite right, especially regarding the Quebec issue. In Canada, each citizen has the right to express his or her political beliefs. As in Taiwanese society, there is also a high degree of consensus on this point in Canada.
The history of Quebec separatism proves Chen's point about unilateral separatism. In 1970 a separatist group called the "Front de liberation du Quebec" (FLQ) tried that. It led to the death of a Quebec minister and the use of military power by the Canadian government to maintain control of the province. It is also true that the separatists had little success using this tactic. Peaceful Quebec citizens felt betrayed by the violent action. But there is a lesser-known part to this story.
When May says in his letter that there has not been a "unilateral demand for separation" from Quebec, he is right. The separatists have never won a referendum. The Canadian government has put all its money and weight into stopping the separatists from succeeding. This has included using undemocratic tactics, such as in the 1995 Quebec referendum -- when everything, including the kitchen sink, was thrown at the separatists to keep them from achieving their goal.
The entire Canadian secret service was and still is working to dwarf the will of Quebec separatists. As a good example of this, when the US was hit by the events of Sept. 11, 2001, there was not a single Arab-speaking translator in the Canadian secret service.
Terrorist groups were operating freely in the country. When they searched for Canadian spies, they were discovered at the highest level of the separatist movement.
The Keable commission [set up by the Quebec government to investigate the actions of the police] found that the federal police violated the law, destroying lives and burning houses to achieve their goal. The Canadian government's action to explore and clarify the issue was seen by many in Quebec as another trick to stop Quebec independence.
So, Chen is also right in saying that an established democracy like Canada refuses to agree to Quebec's unilateral demands for separation. It shows that there are things other than the military threat from China that can stop the people of Taiwan from democratically deciding if they should become independent.
Lets hope Taiwan will be able to enter into a discussion with China about Taiwanese independence. Democracy does not guarantee happiness if it is emptied of respect for human rights.
Freedom of information is essential for a liberal democracy, to make it so that two conflicting parties are more willing to resolve their differences through rational communication.
A deal can be reached sooner than many think.
Goodwill on both sides can transcend all other matters. If China and Taiwan find a compromise in a legal, respectful and civilized manner, be sure that Canada and the citizens of Quebec will take note.
Michel Gourd
Quebec, Canada
US President Donald Trump last week told reporters that he had signed about 12 letters to US trading partners, which were set to be sent out yesterday, levying unilateral tariff rates of up to 70 percent from Aug. 1. However, Trump did not say which countries the letters would be sent to, nor did he discuss the specific tariff rates, reports said. The news of the tariff letters came as Washington and Hanoi reached a trade deal earlier last week to cut tariffs on Vietnamese exports to the US to 20 percent from 46 percent, making it the first Asian country
As things heated up in the Middle East in early June, some in the Pentagon resisted American involvement in the Israel-Iran war because it would divert American attention and resources from the real challenge: China. This was exactly wrong. Rather, bombing Iran was the best thing that could have happened for America’s Asia policy. When it came to dealing with the Iranian nuclear program, “all options are on the table” had become an American mantra over the past two decades. But the more often US administration officials insisted that military force was in the cards, the less anyone believed it. After
On Monday, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) delivered a welcome speech at the ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum, addressing more than 50 international law experts from more than 20 countries. With an aim to refute the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) claim to be the successor to the 1945 Chinese government and its assertion that China acquired sovereignty over Taiwan, Lin articulated three key legal positions in his speech: First, the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration were not legally binding instruments and thus had no legal effect for territorial disposition. All determinations must be based on the San Francisco Peace
During an impromptu Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) rally on Tuesday last week to protest what the party called the unfairness of the judicial system, a young TPP supporter said that if Taiwan goes to war, he would “surrender to the [Chinese] People’s Liberation Army [PLA] with unyielding determination.” The rally was held after former Taipei deputy mayor Pong Cheng-sheng’s (彭振聲) wife took her life prior to Pong’s appearance in court to testify in the Core Pacific corruption case involving former Taipei mayor and TPP chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲). The TPP supporter said President William Lai (賴清德) was leading them to die on
RSS