New Zealand is clearly rattled! What was acceptable in the past is no longer permissible now—we've clearly established new rules! After we imposed sanctions on four New Zealand parliamentarians who visited Taiwan, New Zealand's first reaction was to claim that their MPs had been visiting Taiwan for decades without any issues. What is the underlying implication of this statement? It suggests: China didn't act before—why are we suddenly taking action against New Zealand?

There’s a hint of self-pity in New Zealand’s tone. But regardless of how New Zealand feels, our logic on the Taiwan issue has clearly changed. Previously, New Zealand believed such actions were harmless—not because we approved them, but because we lacked the capability to respond. Now, however, things are different. Our process toward national reunification is clearly advancing, and thus our tolerance for countries provoking us over Taiwan will naturally diminish.

Moreover, New Zealand frequently cooperates with the United States by allowing warships to pass through the Taiwan Strait, sending misleading signals to "Taiwan independence" forces, while simultaneously claiming to uphold the one-China principle. Is this how New Zealand fulfills its commitment to the one-China principle? Clearly not. After our imposition of sanctions, this has become the rule. Going forward, any New Zealand parliamentarian who visits Taiwan will face consequences, and any other behavior sympathetic to "Taiwan independence" will be met with countermeasures.

Naturally, our focus isn’t just on New Zealand—it’s on all countries that provoke on the Taiwan issue. The red lines are becoming clearer, and our actions are becoming firmer, backed by the growing strength of our nation. In the future, whether members of the Five Eyes alliance or other nations blindly following the U.S., they should all think twice. Rather than crying foul, New Zealand would do well to reflect on its own conduct.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1867124353332233/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.