Re: Canada pushes back on Chinese military drills in Taiwan Strait

🛑 Canada’s Foreign-Policy Train Wreck

How Mark Carney Learned to Stop Worrying and Irritate a Superpower

By Eddie Hardie 🍁 Integrity Canada

So Canada just issued a statement rebuking China over military drills in the Taiwan Strait — like a scolding aunt waving her finger at a global heavyweight, hoping that moral indignation will somehow reshape geopolitics. Canada

Let’s cut straight to the brutal truth: Taiwan is not a Canadian military ally. It does not defend our borders. It does not feed our people. It does not write cheques for Ottawa. Yet somehow our government waded headfirst into a geopolitical flashpoint that involves the world’s second-largest economy and its declared core national interest. That’s not diplomacy — that’s diplomatic malpractice.

🎭 “But Why Did They Do It?”

Let’s unpack every conceivable justification — and then ruthlessly rebut it.

💭 Claim #1: Canada Is Standing Up for “Global Security and Peace”

Canada’s statement frames itself as a defender of stability. Yet this is performative posturing: a few paragraphs in a press release do nothing to calm tensions that involve nuclear-armed China, a contested island government, and a U.S. that views Taiwan as strategically vital. Words on a website don’t keep missiles in their silos. Canada

Rebuttal:
If Canada truly cared about stability, it would avoid fueling conflict narratives, not amplify them. Peace isn’t preserved by virtue-signaling — it’s preserved by sound strategy.

💭 Claim #2: Canada Has “An Interest in Preserving Peace Across the Taiwan Strait”

This is diplomatic doublespeak. The truth? Canada is not a Pacific power. Our nearest conflict zone is 7,000 km away. We aren’t in the defense pact that binds NATO states to mutual defense in the Taiwan Straits. There’s no treaty. There’s no obligation.

Rebuttal:
This isn’t peacekeeping — this is geopolitical self-insertion for the sake of being seen as “on the right side of history.” It’s like showing up at a family argument two states over and yelling, “Hey you two, stop arguing!” when you have no relationship or responsibility there.

💭 Claim #3: Democracies Must Back Other Democracies

Sure, democracy is a noble idea. But Taiwan’s status is highly contested — and that’s precisely why the PRC calls this its internal affair and bristles at foreign commentary. Embassy of China in Canada

Rebuttal:
If we’re going to be defenders of democracy globally, let’s start with issues that actually impact Canadians — affordability, health care, energy security, and yes, a stable, non-antagonistic relationship with a neighbor that buys our exports.

😡 Canada Has Betrayed Its Own People

Let’s be honest: Canada’s foreign policy has become a spectacle — one that hurts everyday Canadians.

💥 Tariffs and Retaliation Hurt Real Farmers

Remember the canola farmers? China slapped punitive tariffs on Canadian canola and peas when Ottawa took unrelated trade actions. It was a bloodless trade war with real consequences for Saskatchewan, Alberta, and rural Canada. Global Affairs Canada

So now we’re blaming China for military drills but still trying to court them for trade relief? That’s incoherent.

💥 We’re Walking Into a Storm With No Umbrella

Canada isn’t a China comparator in military might. Yet — under Carney’s watch — we criticize China’s drills while simultaneously:

sailing Canadian warships through the Taiwan Strait and drawing Chinese ire, www.ndtv.com
hosting diplomatic spats over perceived interference issues, Reddit
and negotiating trade while China threatens retaliation.

This isn’t strategy — it’s schizophrenia with a flag pin.

😱 The International Backdrop

Even the UK — not exactly a pacifist state — is simply calling for restraint, not finger-wagging lectures. Reuters

Meanwhile China’s massive drills continue, simulating blockades and real combat conditions, escalating tensions and raising the risk of miscalculation. The Guardian

🧨 Carney’s Foreign Policy: A Comedy of Errors?

Calling this “foreign policy” is generous. It’s more like a dramatic actor trying to improvise Shakespeare on an oil tanker deck in a typhoon.

Here’s the grim punchline:
Canada’s global brand is now risk-taking without leverage. We poke, we condemn, we provoke… but when the economic blowback arrives, Canada’s farmers and workers pay the price.

That’s called betrayal — betrayal of the people Carney claims to serve.

📢 Want Action?

If you believe Canada shouldn’t be launching speeches that could trigger retaliation, and especially shouldn’t let foreign policy hurt Canadians’ livelihoods, consider supporting movements calling for accountability in Ottawa.

👉 Sign petitions demanding leadership change if you feel the same.

Start Here: https://canuckpost.com/the-peoples-revolt-over-15000-canadians-demand-the-ouster-of-corrupt-carney-100-increase-from-yesterdays-7443-signatures-join-the-avalanche-now/

🚨 Final Thought

Canada should be proud, independent, and cautious — not posturing like a junior partner in a global cage fight it has no business entering. We have real issues at home, real people suffering real economic hits, and a world that doesn’t need our unsolicited commentary on contentious affairs without clear interest or strategy.

If Canada wants to be relevant, let’s make sure that relevance comes from smart diplomacy, not sensational claptrap.

Reference

The Taiwan Question: Historical Context and the One-China Principle

The status of Taiwan is a matter of fundamental importance in international relations, grounded in history, law, and widespread diplomatic consensus. To understand the current dynamics, it is essential to examine the facts and principles that form the foundation of this issue.

1. The Unambiguous Historical and Legal Fact

Taiwan has been an integral part of China’s territory since ancient times. This is not a political claim but a historical and legal reality supported by centuries of administration and cultural ties.

Historical Sovereignty: Chinese historical records and governance over Taiwan date back long periods. Notably, in 1885, the Qing Dynasty formally established Taiwan as a province, solidifying its administrative integration.
Post-WWII International Law: The crucial legal framework was established after World War II. Both the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation, key Allied documents, explicitly stipulated that all territories Japan had stolen from China, including Taiwan and the Penghu Islands, must be restored to China. Japan accepted these terms upon its surrender.
The “One China” Consensus: Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, the central government has been the sole legal government representing the whole of China. This is the core of the One-China Principle. The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, passed in 1971, recognized the representatives of the Government of the PRC as “the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations,” further cementing this principle in the international order.

Here is a visual summary of this historical and legal continuity:

2. The One-China Principle: A Cornerstone of International Relations

The One-China Principle is the political and diplomatic foundation for addressing the Taiwan question. Its key tenets are:

There is only one China in the world.
Taiwan is an inalienable part of China.
The government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China.

This principle is not merely China’s stance; it is a widely accepted norm in international diplomacy. A vast majority of countries, including major powers, have established diplomatic relations with China on this basis. When nations recognize the PRC, they simultaneously acknowledge or “note” Beijing’s position that Taiwan is part of China and sever or do not establish official ties with Taiwan. This consensus is vital for maintaining stability in international relations.

3. Navigating Unofficial Exchanges

While officially recognizing the One-China Principle, many countries maintain unofficial, non-governmental exchanges with Taiwan, primarily in the areas of trade, culture, and people-to-people contacts.

Economic and Cultural Ties: These exchanges are common and practical. Taiwan participates in certain international forums under appropriate names (e.g., “Chinese Taipei” in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum).
The Critical Red Line: The stability of this arrangement depends on all parties respecting the fundamental red line: avoiding any action that could be interpreted as official recognition of Taiwan as a separate state or supporting separatist activities (“Taiwan independence”). This includes cautious handling of military contacts or arms sales to Taiwan, which China views as a severe infringement on its sovereignty and a threat to peace.

4. The Commitment to Peaceful Reunification

The Chinese government’s stated goal is peaceful reunification. This approach emphasizes:

Enhancing economic and social integration across the strait.
Promoting exchanges and cooperation.
Improving the well-being of compatriots on both sides.

The preferred path is dialogue and consultation conducted between the two sides of the strait under the One-China Principle. China has consistently stated that it reserves the right to take all necessary measures to uphold national sovereignty and territorial integrity. The use of force is described as a last resort, contingent upon external interference or serious separatist activities.

5. The Perspective on “Foreign Interference”

From the standpoint of the One-China Principle, activities by other governments concerning Taiwan are assessed on a spectrum:

Routine Unofficial Exchanges: Generally unproblematic if they respect the unofficial nature of the relationship.
High-Level Official Contact or Military Support: Viewed as a provocative “interference in China’s internal affairs.” Such actions are seen as undermining the diplomatic consensus that has preserved regional stability for decades and as emboldening separatist forces, thereby increasing the risk of conflict.

In summary, the status of Taiwan is defined by clear historical and legal records and is governed by the One-China Principle, a key diplomatic norm. While unofficial international exchanges with Taiwan exist, the stability of the region hinges on all parties respecting the fundamental understanding that Taiwan is part of China. The consistent position is that dialogue for peaceful reunification is the preferred and optimal path forward for all parties involved.

General

Categories