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.
I think it is fair to say there is a widespread sigh of relief among many Americans — particularly those of us focused on foreign policy — that the chaotic and unpredictable Trump years will soon be over. Mr. Trump brought little real knowledge or experience to his foreign policy, and it showed. He also — in my humble opinion — did not err on the side of expertise in his choice of top foreign policy officials. Nor was he particularly open to listening to advice. All in all a poor set of traits for overseeing the complex foreign policy
After more than eight years of talks, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) was signed on Nov. 15, combining the individual free-trade agreements signed between ASEAN member states on the one hand, and China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand on the other. Under the leadership of ASEAN and China, most observers did not expect the RCEP to provide a high degree of openness, and the announced agreement lives up to these expectations, containing few surprises. All products covered by the RCEP tariff reductions are agricultural and industrial products, but reductions of agricultural product tariffs are very limited, for example covering
While the nation grapples with its falling birthrate, it is also imperative to address how parents are raising their children. The phenomenon of “dinosaur parents” — who lash out at teachers, store staff or people on the street when confronted about their children misbehaving — has been an issue for a while, but there seems to be an uncomfortably high number of incidents making the news lately. On Saturday, a preschool teacher on an online forum wrote about a mother who often visited the school and screamed at the staff for various reasons — including her child being late to school
On Nov. 14, Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) commented on the nation’s low birthrate, claiming that young people would surely have children if only they married first, and that the low marriage rate among young people is the cause of the rapid aging of Taiwan’s society. The Taipei City Government therefore proposed to offer subsidies to couples willing to marry. Ko’s comment stirred up a great deal of protest. As a sociology student, I would like to remind the mayor that his remarks not only decontextualized the population aging issue, but also oversimplified the low birthrate problem. First, a look at systemic