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.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has created a dilemma that could soon cause him to be hoisted with his own petard, bringing his leadership of China to an end. His threatening rhetoric over the unification of Taiwan with China, in which he has said, “we are willing to draw blood if necessary,” has placed Xi in a corner. Xi is portrayed as a strong world leader, yet he has created a scenario for himself that most likely would have an unfavorable outcome. With the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) scheduled to convene this month, Xi cannot
The 77th session of the UN General Assembly opened on Sept. 13. More than 10 overseas Taiwanese organizations had submitted a petition to the UN secretary-general, protesting that 23.5 million Taiwanese are excluded from representation. As president of the Taiwan United Nations Alliance, I also submitted a letter to the UN, saying that Taiwanese should have the right to be represented under the name of Taiwan. The government has been asking its allies to support Taiwan’s entry into the UN, but under its official name, the Republic of China (ROC). Doing so would have involved the right to represent China, with
I was privileged to meet with many of Taiwan’s leaders and leading thinkers during a study tour visit in August. One theme I heard several times during that trip was that bad relations between the United States and China benefit Taiwan. At first thought, I empathize with the argument. After all, there is a troubling record of America’s leaders negotiating with Beijing over the heads of Taiwan’s leaders. For example, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt returned Taiwan to China after World War II. President Richard Nixon surprised Taiwan leaders with his 1972 trip to China. President Jimmy Carter unilaterally chose to normalize
Washington’s “one China” policy has not changed and the US does not take a position on Taiwan’s sovereignty issue, a US Department of State spokesperson has said. He said that this has been the principle of US policy toward Taiwan since 1979, and the policy has remained in effect. He also said that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has privately made this clear to Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅). The US’ “one China” policy and China’s “one China” principle recognize China as the “representative of China.” The two diverge on the issue of Taiwan: Beijing asserts sovereignty