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?
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath