The quote implies
No it doesn't? It never says not to do both. Just that one is short term, the other is long term. You've applied your own interpretation.
TheOctonaut
joined 2 years ago
You remember how that story ends right?
These are not new laws. They are "guidelines" to the old ones. DemocracyWatch and one activist are the ones panicking. The article itself is at least balanced enough to have a voice that pretty explicitly says nothing has changed and this is just the usual theatre.
That's the crux of it. This repeated desire to make scary headlines out of political theatre when both sides play political pretend - that one of these days the Mongolian representatives will show up to Taiwan's parliament; that China doesn't recognise Taiwan when as you said they literally do every day. All to be forgotten in 6 months when none of it comes true but by then there'll be another story to replace it. Not only that but you're not even the target audience - it's for American readers, who need to be reminded that intervening in a civil war on the other side of the planet is Good and Freedom and Worthy.
Your suggestion that that is the "modern position of Taiwan" fails to mention that that is the position of one political party that's had power for less than a decade and whose leader got 6.5% more than a party with a different view back in January.
I am sure you worry about your safety - I would suggest that being told you are a pawn in a geopolitical game for a dying empire should be pretty scary.
Only the UK & Ireland (and Malta maybe?) drive on the left in Europe
The citizens of the world's exceptionalist democracy when the government tyranny their guns are supposed to be for don't represent them:
Sometimes they even fight a War On Terror
As opposed to the person with diametrically opposite views to you, yes.