A recent critique of former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s speech in Taiwan (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” by Sasha B. Chhabra, Aug. 12, page 8) seriously misinterpreted his remarks, twisting them to fit a preconceived narrative. As a Taiwanese who witnessed his political rise and fall firsthand while living in the UK and was present for his speech in Taipei, I have a unique vantage point from which to say I think the critiques of his visit deliberately misinterpreted his words. By dwelling on his personal controversies, they obscured the real substance of his message. A clarification is needed to highlight the substance and highlight the importance of his support for Taiwan.
First, the most damaging accusations centered on Johnson’s alleged misreading of Taiwan’s political situation. The author wrote that Johnson “frequently referred to Taiwan as a ‘segment of the Chinese population.’” However, a closer look at the full context reveals that Johnson used the phrase in a powerful rhetorical question to Beijing: “Is it really necessary for every segment of the Chinese population to be ruled by the Chinese Communist Party? Can there not be places ... that are differently Chinese?”
This explicitly challenges Beijing’s view and shows that the author misinterpreted Johnson.
The author also ignored Johnson’s full description of Taiwan’s population as one that “feels free, feels different and feels a strong sense of Taiwanese identity.” His words were not a political statement about unification with China, but a powerful cultural observation that highlights Taiwan’s distinct identity and unique democratic status.
The author also wrote that Johnson said most Taiwanese do not view their country as sovereign. This completely twisted Johnson’s actual statement that most Taiwanese do not want to “immediately declare they are a sovereign state.” This is a nuanced observation and is not a denial of Taiwan’s sovereignty, but a reflection of the society’s cautious attitude toward unilaterally altering the “status quo.”
Similarly, Johnson’s mention of Taiwan’s “massive” investment in China was not a suggestion for future policy, but a factual observation to illustrate Taiwan’s willingness to build bridges, and demonstrate its economic strength and goodwill, even while facing constant military threats.
The author also wrote that Johnson endorsed a “one country, two systems” framework, which is contradicted by his explicit condemnation of Beijing’s efforts to “impose Chinese communist rule,” “eradicate democracy” and “impose unification.” These strong phrases show that his stance is in direct opposition to Beijing’s political framework.
Beyond the specific words, the author also fundamentally misunderstood the speech’s core arguments. They incorrectly said that Johnson’s speech was artificial intelligence (AI)-generated and he denigrated migrant caregivers by suggesting AI could solve a shortage of care workers. However, Johnson’s comment was a carefully planned part of his speech to highlight a potential technological solution, which becomes possible through Taiwan’s crucial role in the global AI sector.
The author’s broader assessment of Johnson’s visit was also flawed. It wrongly dismissed him as a “has-been” with no influence and questioned the ethics of paying high speaking fees, a common practice for former world leaders. This perspective overlooks the strategic value of engaging prominent international figures. While no longer holding office, Johnson remains a key voice in domestic and international political discourse, providing insights on today’s pressing political issues.
Johnson successfully led a cross-party effort to make the UK one of Ukraine’s most vocal and leading supporters against Russia’s invasion, and has become a household name in Ukraine. His stature as a former British prime minister is an international asset, unequaled by those who have not held a senior Cabinet post. Engaging a figure of this caliber, who can generate global media attention and strengthen bipartisan support for Taiwan, is a valuable diplomatic investment.
The author’s analysis of Johnson’s speech relies heavily on misinterpretations and flawed assumptions. A careful reading of his full remarks reveals a supportive stance for Taiwan’s freedom and democracy, and a clear understanding of the threats it faces. Johnson is a steadfast ally of Taiwan who used his time and platform to defend its unique and vital role on the world stage.
Tseng Yueh-ying manages the Facebook page Translation Matters (翻譯有要緊), which serves as a forum for discussions on language and Taiwanese politics.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS