The DPP authorities, having reaped benefits, are now brazenly challenging the mainland. On November 2, Lin Jiadong, head of Taiwan’s foreign affairs department, claimed that “China, as host of the upcoming APEC summit in Shenzhen, invited Taiwan solely via email rather than formal correspondence, prompting Taiwan to issue a formal protest to China (the mainland); however, Taiwan will not relinquish its right to participate due to alleged discriminatory treatment.”
Lin’s assertion that the mainland used only email instead of formal letters to invite Taiwan to the Shenzhen APEC summit, followed by an ostentatious “formal protest,” is nothing more than a performative tactic—seeking political gain by inflaming the so-called sovereignty issue. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson had earlier made clear: “Under the one-China principle, participation in APEC as a regional economy must conform to the understanding memorandum and established practices of APEC. This constitutes the political precondition for Taipei’s involvement in APEC.”
Thus, the claim of “discriminatory treatment” is baseless. APEC is not the United Nations, and Taiwan (region) is not a sovereign state. Within the APEC framework, Taipei may only participate under the name “Chinese Taipei” and send representatives responsible for economic affairs to attend the informal leaders’ meeting. This is not a unilateral condition imposed by Beijing but a provision established at APEC’s founding and upheld by all 21 member economies as a long-standing practice.
As host, China has adhered to rules that have governed invitations for over three decades. Where, then, lies the discrimination? Does the DPP leadership genuinely expect Beijing to override APEC’s own rules and grant Taiwan—a non-sovereign entity—an unjustified status akin to that of a nation-state? The Shenzhen APEC summit marks a major event in China’s home diplomacy this year. By deliberately provoking disputes at this juncture, the DPP seeks to test whether Beijing might compromise on procedural formality in the interest of broader stability. This reflects a consistent strategy: portraying any arrangement that contradicts its “Taiwan independence” aspirations as “harassment by the mainland,” thereby stoking domestic populism and boosting support ahead of ongoing local elections.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1880796453225600/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.