Chinese state-run tabloid the Global Times ran an editorial on President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) Double Ten National Day speech. It gives an interesting insight into the hawkish Chinese perspective on how Taiwan sees itself.
First, a look at what Tsai said in her speech.
With the theme a “Better Taiwan,” Tsai spoke of the government’s achievements and the main thrust of its policies. She talked of reform and policy direction, and the importance of the military.
Of the speech’s 4,000 words, 535 were devoted to the issue of safeguarding Taiwan’s democracy and sovereignty, concentrating on the importance of military preparedness, while 444 words were devoted to cross-strait relations, focusing on the mutual understanding developed over the past 30 years.
Tsai avoided talk of the so-called “1992 consensus” even as a historical fact, much less as a basis for negotiations.
Interestingly, she did not mention “China” in her speech, and neither was there a single mention of “unification” or “independence” in the context of cross-strait relations.
By far the largest individual section was devoted to her government’s plans for finding a place for the nation in the international order, the government’s New Southbound Policy and the nation’s part in Asian regional cooperation, although curiously not with China.
There were 1,125 characters devoted to the nation’s engagement with the international community, compared with 444 on cross-strait relations.
Tsai concluded her speech with a mention of Father Brendan O’Connell, a Catholic priest also known as Kan Hui-chung (甘惠忠), who on Jan. 26 was awarded citizenship in recognition of his 54 years of contributions to the nation.
It was a celebratory, unifying speech, calling on all political parties to work together, a speech about Taiwan: Not just inward-looking, not entirely outward-looking, but also about inclusiveness.
That is not how the Global Times saw it.
It did not want Tsai listing her achievements or her vision. When she spoke of a “better Taiwan,” the Global Times scoffed at her audacious delusion.
How can she call Taiwan a nation when it does not have a UN seat and when the Vatican is its sole diplomatic ally in Europe?
Good point, like when the school bully holds up the lunch money he just stole and says that you are hungry.
How can Tsai talk about goodwill toward China, when she appoints a premier who espouses his personal commitment to Taiwanese independence the moment he steps into his job?
The clue is in the word “personal.”
Does she think, the Global Times editorial asked, that speaking in her dulcet feminine tones is sufficient to denote goodwill?
The writer is clearly not comfortable with a woman being in charge of what China considers to be its property.
And that is the crux of it, of course. The speech was given by someone interfering with China’s “property” and talking of a vision for the future when the future of Taiwan is — in the writer’s mind — with China.
This is how the editorial ends: “China already has the power to decide the parameters of Taiwan’s policy, to stipulate what the Taiwanese authorities can and cannot do, and to curtail their aspirations beyond their borders. The “Anti-Secession” law is already producing an effect in Taiwan. From the larger historical perspective, the process of unifying with Taiwan is already on its way.”
How can you argue with that?
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US