According to reports on Australian journalist Graham Davis’ news blog Grubsheet Feejee and the New Zealand-based Asia Pacific Report Web site, two members of the Chinese embassy in Fiji on Oct. 8 gate-crashed Taiwan’s Double Ten National Day celebration to take pictures of the guests. When members of the Taipei Trade Office in Fiji asked them to leave, the Chinese diplomats reportedly assaulted one of the Taiwanese officials.
Surprisingly, the office did not mention the incident in its press release after the party, which raises a series of questions.
When was Minister of Foreign Affairs Joseph Wu (吳釗燮) first told about the incident? If he also learned about it from the Asia Pacific Report 11 days later, then Taiwan’s representative office should be punished for withholding information.
If the office did provide a truthful account of the event before it was reported in the news, then Wu should take responsibility for withholding it from the public.
Faced with China’s “wolf warrior” diplomacy, Wu should let Taiwanese know what kind of diplomacy Taiwan has adopted: hedgehog-style or ostrich-style?
It makes sense that the offender would want to settle a dispute and calm things down after such an event, but why is Taiwan’s representative office, the victim, trying to downplay the incident?
Before reporting to the Legislative Yuan on Tuesday last week, Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) criticized the Chinese diplomats for behaving like gangsters, but added that because Taiwan does not have diplomatic relations with Fiji, it cannot make a big deal out of it.
Unlike the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which condemned the Chinese side and demanded an apology and punishment for the offenders, Su’s humble remarks were simply unbearable.
Since the Taiwanese diplomat was carrying out his official duties when he was hit by the Chinese diplomats, was that not also a slap in Taiwan’s face?
If it had not been for foreign media reporting the event, would the ministry have told the public, or would it have been too afraid?
Should the Ministry of Foreign Affairs simply endure China’s abuse as it acts like a thug and bullies Taiwan, or should the ministry call an international news conference and denounce the violence?
When 20-year-old Taiwanese entertainer Ouyang Nana (歐陽娜娜) sang the Chinese song My Motherland (我的祖國) at China’s National Day celebration on Oct. 1, Su defended her, saying that she is just a young woman who had no choice but to yield to Beijing to make a living.
The “young woman” clearly knows how to curry favor with the Chinese government, so why would Su defend her? What is the difference between him and a slave who helps count the money for the person who sold him into slavery?
People often say that diplomacy is an extension of domestic policy. Is it because Su is so considerate of pro-China entertainers that the foreign ministry is acting so weak and refuses to fight back when hit?
For the sake of personal gain, Taiwanese entertainers such as Huang An (黃安), Fanny Liu (劉樂妍) and Ouyang continue to curry favor with China while they hurt, trample on and sell out Taiwan. Of course other entertainers learn from them.
Since Taiwanese law can do nothing about it, when will the legislature take action and amend legislation?
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired associate professor at National Hsinchu University of Education.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past