When Nancy Pelosi's military plane landed at Taipei's Songshan Airport, Twitter was flooded with cynicism from netizens that China had not blocked the US House Speaker's visit to Taiwan, but this short-sighted Intuitive gameplay is not what Pelosi is fighting for.
The moment his special plane landed, the Washington Post, the core of the Democratic Party's "comfort zone", immediately published Pelosi's opinion piece explaining her visit to Taiwan, the content of which was roughly inseparable from "defending democracy" and "defending democracy". Reasons such as Beijing's heightened tensions" and "the struggle between democracy and autocracy" are clearly aimed at winning the approval of liberal intellectuals.
Unfortunately, about four hours later, the Washington Post published the article "The Destruction of Pelosi's Unwise Visit Must Be Controlled", a comprehensive rebuttal of his decision to visit Taiwan.
In the past, Western elites generally disdained China's wolf warrior-style diplomatic and military rhetoric.
This time, too, an editorial in The Economist, for example, compared Pelosi's visit to the events of the Lithuanian representative office in Taiwan, which caused major grievances in Europe.
Unlike in the past, however, many views focus on the motives behind Pelosi's decision to visit Taiwan at this moment.
An editorial in The Washington Post criticized Pelosi's actions as "unwise", citing the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian war and Xi's preparations for a third term as president.
Edward Luce, a well-known columnist for the Financial Times, and Thomas L. Friedman, a foreign affairs columnist for the New York Times, have similar opinions.
The former described Pelosi's actions as a "pyromonic" who set fires in front of China for no reason; the latter described her decision as "completely reckless, dangerous and irresponsible."
The Guardian has an analysis article saying that Pelosi's visit to Taiwan "enrages Beijing but achieves nothing".
Foreign Policy, which is quite representative of the opinions of the American diplomatic elite, also published a debate article in which both parties agreed that Pelosi's visit to Taiwan was "completely unnecessary", while another scholar's article pointed to his visit to Taiwan. Only "dramatic gestures" but lack of "practical help".
Even the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, which takes a more hawkish stance toward China, agreed that Pelosi's visit was largely symbolic.
Against the background of the Russian-Ukrainian war in full swing and the dilemma of inflation and economic recession in the United States, Western public opinion's answer to why Pelosi decided to visit Taiwan at this moment is probably inseparable from her selfishness.
For example, an editorial in the Washington Post pointed out that this trip will be the pinnacle of Pelosi's political career, who is likely to lose the speakership after this year's midterm elections.
Pelosi's visit to Taiwan: The picture shows a screenshot of a video on August 2, 2022, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (also translated as Pelosi, Pelosi or Polosi) at about 10:43 pm I landed at Taipei Songshan Airport and walked out of the cabin shortly after.
(AP)
The pinnacle of his political career that he wrote, directed and acted?
It is not difficult to understand why various parties have such interpretations.
Any visit by a foreign congressional politician can only be a declaration of a diplomatic and political gesture in many cases, and the declaration of gesture must be considered in a timely manner.
For example, Pelosi's visit to Ukraine in early May after the situation in Kyiv had stabilized was taken for granted, without any controversy.
But in contrast, even under the leadership of Tsai Ing-wen's government, the deterioration of relations between Taiwan and mainland China and the so-called "communal interference with Taiwan" have become an almost daily occurrence. The conflict has made it necessary for the US Congress to show diplomatic support for Taiwan at this moment.
Another type of congressman's visit is clearly meant to ask legislative questions.
In April of this year, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez, along with senior Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and others, visited Taiwan without prior announcement.
In June of this year, Menendez and Graham proposed the "Taiwan Policy Act" that would amend part of the "Taiwan Relations Act" of 1979, which proposed to expand the scope of arms sales to Taiwan. Taiwan has become a "major non-NATO ally" and has funded Taiwan's purchase of U.S. arms to refute U.S. criticism that arms sales to Taiwan are for profit.
From the U.S. perspective, this is at least an action that has the potential to bring about substantial policy change.
In contrast, Pelosi, who is 82 years old, is meaningless to visit Taiwan at a time when the midterm elections are less than three months away and major legislation is hopeless.
The news of the visit to Taiwan "flowed out" in the media in advance, causing a predictable and tough response from China. The differences between the White House and Pelosi on the visit have also received continuous media attention, and people have to suspect that this is Pelosi's side. Intentionally wrote, directed and acted, to gather the most scenes on the farewell performance of his "historic" visit to Taiwan.
Pelosi and Tsai Ing-wen entered the meeting.
Pelosi continued to talk vaguely in support of the two's press conference.
(AP)
In response, even opinion leaders particularly opposed to China's backlash, such as Tom Mitchell, the Beijing office director of the Financial Times, cited Beijing's toughness as adding undeserved importance to Pelosi's visit to Taiwan.
There is only one reason for supporting Pelosi's visit, ranging from conservative diplomacy columnist Bret Stephens of The New York Times, editorials of The Wall Street Journal, to Newt Gingrich, who visited Taiwan as Speaker of the House of Representatives in 1997. , that is, the United States cannot show weakness under the tough threat of China.
This logic has created a problem similar to "chicken or egg" - after all, Beijing's toughness was triggered by Pelosi's plan to visit Taiwan, and vice versa.
On August 3, Pelosi's vague supportive remarks during her trip to Taiwan also constantly proved the fact that she was "unknown."
Therefore, so far, for Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, Democrats who generally hold more pragmatic considerations about competition with China have not expressed clear support for Pelosi's visit to Taiwan. Pelosi visits Taiwan.
Of course, the negative opinion of Western elites on Pelosi's visit to Taiwan does not mean that they support China's position that it does not rule out military reunification of Taiwan. The almost unanimous opinion of all parties is still that the United States should take concrete actions to enrich Taiwan's military power to hinder the CCP The so-called unilateral change of the status quo across the Taiwan Strait has emerged.
However, compared with the previous incident of the Lithuania Taiwan Representative Office, in the battlefield of Western elites' public opinion, this time China can be regarded as slightly better.
People's focus is no longer on the "irrationality" of China's tough stance. The protagonist of the "irrational" falls on Pelosi, who believes that under the banner of defending democracy, she will inevitably gain the moral high ground.
This performance has undoubtedly attracted the attention of the global media, but for Pelosi, not just any publicity is also good publicity.
At present, China's economic and military response to Taiwan is still in progress. It is not yet known to what extent "Pelosi's destruction" will evolve in the eyes of the West. Find out.
Pelosi's visit to Taiwan | Military blockade, economic siege, forget the "nationalization" of the Diaoyu Islands in 2012?
Pelosi's visit to Taiwan | Not a one-day crisis or a Sino-US showdown 'Visit' reflects political reality of US-Taiwan relations