|
|
|
Taiwan’s Great Leap Forward Remarks by Hon. David Kilgour, M.P. Edmonton- Mill Woods-Beaumont Stanley A. Milner Library Sir Winston Churchill Square Edmonton, Alberta 7:30pm, Friday, April 22nd, 2005.
Taiwan is one of the truly amazing stories of democratic change in the world. Even before Ukraine’s Orange Revolution had occurred Taiwan underwent a quiet revolution that began on July 15th 1987 when President Chiang Ching-kuo lifted the Emergency Decree. At that time President Ching-kuo lifted Taiwan’s state of martial law and began to implement sweeping democratic reforms. There was a dramatic shift from the gradual pace of liberalization under the auspices of martial law to a full-fledged push toward democracy. Within just four years the reformation effort had achieved or facilitated, among other things, the legalization of opposition parties, the smooth constitutional transition of political power after President Chiang's death, the rapid implementation of press freedoms and the invigoration of the political arena. By 1996 Taiwan had completed its transition to democracy with the popular election of President Lee Teng-Hui.
In the course of thirteen years since the reformation effort began, Taiwan has achieved what has taken decades elsewhere. In France it took a decade of revolution just to bring about the emergence of democratic ideals. During this period there was bloodshed, chaos and great instability as the old order was toppled by who had been oppressed by it. After the revolution it then took another six decades for the French democracy to become firmly established. It was only in 1958, after four prior attempts at instituting a democratic regime that France finally proclaimed the Fifth Republic, which has become the enduring face of French democracy.
By comparison, Taiwan has undergone the transition from autocratic rule under martial law to a fully-fledged democracy without guns, without violence and without force. In just thirteen years Taiwan has adopted and implemented democratic ideals and blossomed into a vibrant democracy. Furthermore, this democracy has shown itself to more than just an intermediary step in the establishment of a lasting democracy. By the year 2000 it had became apparent that democracy in Taiwan has become deeply embedded in the social fabric when the peaceful transfer of power from the Nationalist Party to the Democratic Progressive Party took place. As of 2003, there were five major political parties as well as 103 other minor parties registered in Taiwan.
In light of all of this it is overwhelmingly evident that democracy in Taiwan is here to stay.
The transition to democracy has touched every part of Taiwanese society. It is apparent in the free enterprise, free speech, in the fact that local and national elections are now held at regular intervals and in how government controls over the people have been steadily eliminated. Taiwan is a truly a shining example of what human potential can accomplish under the right conditions. As result of implementing a liberal democracy, Taiwan has experienced robust economic growth throughout the 90’s and into the new millennium. Its example is especially relevant as we tackle the challenge of poverty and oppression. This makes it all the more important that Canada continues to show support for Taiwan as way of encouraging other countries in the world to follow the same path to prosperity and democracy.
Even though Taiwan and China share a common ethno-cultural heritage, Taiwan has created its own unique identity and exhibits all of the attributes of a sovereign state. As per the conditions set out in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, it fulfills all of the conditions necessary to be recognized as a sovereign entity. It has a defined territory, a permanent population and a functional and effective government, which has all the powers one would associate with a governing body, including the ability to create and enforce legislation and enter into relations with other states.
Taiwan is in no way associated with China in any manner beyond that which it voluntarily chooses. By virtue of all these facts, it easily qualifies under international law as a sovereign entity. Any change status in the relations between China and Taiwan should therefore require the agreement of both parties.
It is worth recalling that soon after taking office as prime minister in 1968, Pierre Trudeau issued a statement which read in part, “…Our aim will be to recognize the People’s Republic of China government as soon as possible and to enable the government to occupy the seat of China in the UN, taking into account that there is a separate government in Taiwan.” Two years earlier, Paul Martin Sr. told the UN General Assembly that “Canada has never recommended a two-China policy. We have recommended a policy of ‘One China, One Taiwan.’”
The Anti-Secession Law & Cross-Strait Relations
Recently China has made a very pronounced move away from a peaceful multilateral approach to resolve the status of Taiwan. On the 14th of March China passed its anti-Secession law which expressly authorizes the use of force against Taiwan should it make any moves toward formal independence. The fact that this law was passed after only three days in China’s 10th National People’s Congress by a vote of 2 896 to 0 poignantly illustrates the marked differences between governance in Taiwan and governance in China. Whereas any law passed by Taiwan’s legislative Yuan must be subject to a vote by the members of the legislature, which in turn represent their constituents, votes by China’s National Assembly are largely exercises for show by comparison. Long before the formal vote on the anti-Secession law took place in China’s National Assembly the outcome of the vote had already been decided by the party leadership. The ratification of this law and its continued existence is a serious impediment to the continuation of peaceful negotiations between Taiwan and China concerning Taiwan’s status.
International disapproval was quick to follow on the heels of this inflammatory law’s passage. The American government immediately condemned the law and called it “counterproductive” to the promotion of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. In the U.S. House of Representatives a resolution formally condemning the anti-Secession law was passed by vote of 424 to 4. The European parliament also affirmed that a peaceful solution must be negotiated between Taiwan and China and that relations must be “based on constructive dialogue and the pursuit of concrete progress”. Our own foreign minister by comparison, only called for the reduction of tensions and failed to highlight the fact that it is China that has taken unilateral action to increase tensions.
In Australia, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer voiced concern that any military altercation between China and United States would oblige Australia to assist the Americans as per the conditions of the ANZUS pact due to the U.S. commitment to Taiwan as per its Taiwan Relations Act.
Without provocation China has unilaterally decided that Taiwan’s only option with regard to China is to unify or face a violent reprisal that will result in unification by force and the subjugation of the Taiwanese people. This provocation on the part of China to attempt to force a resolution to the question of Taiwan’s status is quite contradictory to China’s often-stated commitment to a “peaceful rise”. If China is to be believed that it maintains a commitment to a “peaceful rise”, its actions must follow the spirit of this declaration. Just as Taiwan has given up its claim on the mainland, China should also make concessions aimed at peacefully negotiating the matter of Taiwan’s status. If China is truly wants to reunite with Taiwan then it should pursue a strategy to win the hearts and minds of the Taiwanese people rather than a policy of gunboat diplomacy. The current direction China has taken has only served anger the people of Taiwan and has made the idea of reunification less palatable.
If China intends to have a sincere dialogue with Taiwan it must begin by rescinding the anti-Secession act so that real and substantial negotiations can take place. While this law is still in place, there can be no negotiation since Taiwan would effectively have no position from which to negotiate. Given the current situation Taiwan would essentially be forced to choose between reunification and conflict. China must also withdraw its requirement that Taiwan accede to its “One China” policy as precondition for any negotiations. This provision continues to be a key stumbling block in Cross-Strait relations. With such a condition in place Taiwan will continue to be in the awkward position of having to have already have agreed to reunification in order to enter into discussions with China. It is therefore incumbent upon China to show goodwill and help to create the conditions necessary for a peaceful resolution with Taiwan.
Canada’s Policy on Taiwan
In the Canadian government’s recently released International Policy Statement the Martin government made a commitment to promoting good governance. I would argue that this commitment also includes efforts to support those nations, which are already well governed. A nation like Taiwan is a brilliant example of democratic transformation for many countries in Asia and around the world. In Asia specifically, it serves as a powerful rebuttal to the “Asian Values Argument” which claims that Asian values and Asia’s specific historical circumstance justify a different way of understanding human rights and democracy. I therefore believe that Canada should do more to strengthen ties with Taiwan and promote Taiwan’s success as a guide for emerging democracies around the world.
Canada must therefore urge China to disarm and withdraw its 707 missiles in the coastal provinces across the Taiwan Strait and also urge members of the European Union to maintain their current arms embargo on China to preserve the regional military balance. Since the embargo was originally imposed in the wake of the Tiananmen Square killings, China still refuses to acknowledge the gross human rights violations that occurred and has shown no sign that it is prepared to reform its ways. In the years since Tiananmen Square, China’s human rights record has not shown signs of improvement and there is a clear risk that arms sold to China may be used against Taiwan.
While the intended goal of lifting the embargo put forward by the by the European Union has been is to normalize ties with China, I believe that such action would downplay the importance of human rights and the importance of seeking a peaceful solution to the question of Taiwan’s status. It would certainly not provide China with an impetus for change if it were allowed to enjoy all the benefits of being a member in good standing of the international community, without having to adhere to internationally accepted standards of conduct.
In light of the passage of the Anti-Secession Law, it is even clearer that under the terms of the European Union’s own Code of Conduct on Arms Export that the embargo should remain. Any sale of arms would only serve to further escalate what is an already tenuous situation and would threaten the military balance between Taiwan and China that is a key factor in maintaining the stability peace of the current peace and leaving the door open to negotiations.
Furthermore, considering the fact that any use of force on Taiwan by China would oblige the United Sates and possibly Japan and Australia as well to become involved in the conflict, the sale of arms to China could potentially threaten global peace, prosperity and stability as well. This obligates Canada to act in the interest not only of preventing conflict between Taiwan and China people but also in the interest of global peace and stability.
There are also a number of other measures that I think should be adopted by Canada in order to strengthen ties with the Taiwanese people. Firstly, Canada should support Taiwan in its efforts to secure a seat on the World Health Organization. Taiwan was recently allowed a seat on the WTO and is a full member of the Asian Development Bank and APEC. In 2003, both Houses of the Canadian Parliament passed resolutions by an overwhelming majority in the House calling on our government to support this goal. Bizarrely, a representative from our executive branch voted against Taiwan's WHO bid in May of 2004, while Japan and the US both voted in favour. This asymmetry between what Parliament sanctioned and what was done needs to be rectified and the will of Parliament must be respected.
Secondly, Canada should permit high-level visits from Taiwan. Canada and Taiwan are both good practitioners of human rights, the rule of law and fair and democratic elections. Thus, Canada should grant visas for unofficial visits to Canada by the President and other senior officials of Taiwan and recognize the burgeoning relationship of our two peoples. It seems rather strange to me that we should treat Taiwan as we do autocratic and repressive regimes given that both Canada and Taiwan are democracies, which share democratic ideals. On the basis o our shared values we should extend the same privileges to high-level Taiwanese officials as we do other democracies.
Thirdly, Canada should institute a visitor visa exemption for Taiwanese citizens. Currently, Taiwan is Canada's seventh largest source of foreign tourists. The Taiwanese make over seven million overseas trips annually, and yet only 150,000 of them come to Canada each year. Taiwanese tourists have considerable purchasing power and are rarely involved in illegal immigration or criminal activities while abroad. Canadians have not required visas to visit Taiwan since 1995; therefore Canada should reciprocate and show the same courtesy to Taiwanese citizens.
Lastly, Canada should negotiate an agreement on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. The lack of formal diplomatic relations between Taiwan and Canada, and the formers’ special international circumstances keeps it from participating in international organizations, including the International Criminal Police (INTERPOL), and prevents effective legal assistance between Taiwan and Canada. Currently, the only cooperation between our two countries involves the notification of lost passports and exchanges of information on fugitive criminals. A mutual legal assistance agreement between the US and Taiwan was formally signed in March of 2004, and has been working effectively since despite the lack of a diplomatic relationship between the two countries. A similar arrangement between Canada and Taiwan could also be arranged to the benefit of both our countries.
Maintaining Harmonious Cross-Strait Relations
Until such time as Taiwan and China experience a social, political and economic convergence and can undertake negotiations that are representative of the will of the two peoples, China should not attempt to force a solution and should take steps to make it possible for Taiwan to take part in such negotiations. Likewise, Taiwan should also make it clear that it will not take any steps to unilaterally change the status quo. Upon the basis of such an agreement, Taiwan and China could then work together to establish a framework for cross-strait relations that maintains the status quo until such time as both parties can agree to participate in negotiations aimed at reaching a conclusive resolution on the question of Taiwan’s status. In the intermediary period before any such negotiations, Taiwan and China should continue to build and strengthen economic and cultural ties to maintain a harmonious cross-strait relationship.
Already over one million Taiwanese conduct business in China and have invested over US$100 billion there which has benefited both Taiwan and China immensely. In January this year both parties participated in successful negotiations that allowed forty-eight direct flights between January 29th and February 20th covering the period of the Lunar New Year. I believe that this success illustrates that with goodwill on both sides of the negotiating table, more can be accomplished. To this end I urge China to rethink its current anti-Secession law and allow for negotiations to occur without any preconditions. As the Olympics draw closer and China seeks to project a more modern image to the world I would like to remind China that Canada and the world are watching. We hope that to see China maintain its commitment to a “peaceful rise” and to act in a manner that contributes to the peace, stability and prosperity in the Asia Pacific Region. |
|
