Taiwan-Canada relations
It was shocking to read Canadian International Minister of Trade Mary Ng quoted in Saturday’s Taipei Times article “Trade office disappointed over ‘delay’ in CPTPP [Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership] bid” saying that Canada’s “one China” policy had not changed.
It appears that this “policy” — if it ever existed — has been superseded by the Nov. 6 motion in the Canadian House of Commons that carried unanimously (which even government Liberal MPs voted in favor of) that UN Resolution 2758 did not establish People’s Republic of China (PRC) sovereignty over Taiwan, as reported in the Taipei Times article “Canada House passes motion on UN Resolution 2758” on Nov. 7.
Moreover, when Canada first recognized the PRC, it never agreed to recognize its “one China” claim that Taiwan was part of it, simply stating that it “takes note of the PRC ‘one China’ position.”
Despite assumptions in Ottawa of a “one China” policy, this simply is not the case, and such rumors should not impede Canada from vigorously supporting Taiwan’s entry into the CPTPP.
Please also note that this illusion of Canada’s “one China” policy has been used to block a Taiwan-Canada social security agreement (SSA).
The lack of a SSA has greatly harmed the livelihood of thousands of senior Canadians living in Taiwan and senior Taiwanese-Canadians in Canada who fall short of qualifying for the Canadian Old Age Security (OAS).
The SSA is an agreement that would enable Canadian expats to count local residence as “Canada time.”
That is important since expat Canadians need 20 years of “Canadian residence past 18 years of age” to qualify for the OAS. That allows Canadians in 90-plus nations to top up their lack of “Canada time” with local residence time.
Furthermore, senior Taiwanese-Canadians who immigrated with their families to Canada and reside there only require 10 years of Canadian residence, like all citizens, to qualify for the OAS. However, due to a lack of agreement between Taiwan and Canada, they cannot count their Taiwan residence as “Canada time” and often live their final years in poverty.
Ng should study the facts and use a bit of humanity instead of obeying the Chinese Communist Party’s party line.
Curtis Smith
Taipei
Chinese Taipei
The debate over the “Chinese Taipei” name has resurfaced because of recent international competitions. While many people are unhappy with this name, I believe we should focus on supporting the athletes’ choices, rather than letting political goals decide their performance.
Athletes have a short window of opportunity to shine, especially athletes like badminton players Chou Tien-chen (周天成) and Tai Tzu-ying (戴資穎), who chose to continue competing under Chinese Taipei during the Olympic referendum to ensure they can compete internationally. Future stars or not, they should not have their careers be hindered by politics.
These Taiwanese athletes, although they compete under the name Chinese Taipei, are internationally recognized as representing Taiwan. Their outstanding performances have brought more attention to Taiwan on the global stage.
However, if Taiwanese overly emphasize political name changes, it could lead to the nation being banned or excluded from international competitions. Thus, Taiwan would not only be unable to showcase its strength in these events, but might also lose the opportunity to have it seen by the world.
Is this not a case of putting the cart before the horse? Are we unknowingly missing the valuable chance to promote Taiwan?
The nation should give athletes more opportunities to excel internationally, not lose them because of a name issue.
Chang Chia-yen
Hsinchu City
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS