They may have omitted this word in the past but currently it is a reflection of a meaningful change in policy.
This change is a recognition that, only giving benefits to Taiwan (ECFA; allowing practically zero import tax of Taiwanese goods sold into mainland China; all kinds of respecting Taiwan's one-sided political assertions at the expense of the mainland's positions, etc.) without ANY teeth, is a bad policy that need to be updated.
What had worked to preserve peace 15 years ago no longer work, when the DPP is actively engaged in separation tactics, deliberate provocations (to the point of complete silliness--an incident ongoing right now, where Taiwanese coast guards caused the deaths of two mainland fishermen, with ongoing refusal to apologize, recognize any fault, outright lies that keep getting discovered in embarrassing ways a day or two after the lie , claiming no video evidence existed though the ship + 4 guards are all supposed video all incidents, refusal to give up the dead bodies or allowing the mainland to participate in examination/dissection for cause of death, etc.), and continuation of anti-China education in their public school system.
What this is not, however, is a sign of imminent invasion or whatever, which seems to be the main implication whenever Western media wrote about Taiwanese things. They deliberately fail to point out that there are like 100 steps the mainland can take, going from inconveniencing Taiwan to outright economically devastate Taiwan, before reaching any kind of hot conflict.
Good context, thank you comrade. I still think it's profoundly stupid for them to focus on the omission of one word from a statement, and that its omission may not directly, exactly reflect what you've listed (I would guess most of the 100 steps you mention they could take towards reunification would fall under the category of peaceful for example), but you're absolutely right that things are changing.
Even if the phrasing change does directly reflect one aspect of a shifting policy, the phrasing change in and of itself isn't particularly notable when better ways explaining the overall the shift exist. But this was the easiest thing to fearmonger with.
I assume they've spelled this out other ways more directly than playing word games?
The focus on one word has to do with how the CPC announces its policy. George Yeo has described interpreting the CPC's policy announcement akin to interpreting the Catholic Church's proclamations. Each year they announce their current updated position, and everyone (including all the party bureaucrats who will be executing policy, the Chinese ppl, media, etc.) compare the current version with last year's version to see what is the change that is now being promoted by the central government. That is, the differences between the 2 texts IS the policy change xD
So, in fact, they are doing the right thing by this narrow focus on a word or two. What they are doing deliberately WRONG, though, is to interpret it only for their own fearmongering purpose.
In fact, the very vagueness and ambiguity of broadcasting policy this way is deliberate: doing so allows local officials to (1) implement policy changes in ways that fit local situations, and (2) have some creativity and flexibility in coming up with potential ways to implement the policy change.
So really, the CPC's policy changes are always a direction to move toward, a general result aimed to be achieved, by a certain time line, without any specific steps as to how.
And in the specific case for Taiwan, (3) this is the CPC itself allowing themselves the ambiguity and flexibility to change policy on Taiwan depending on how things work out as this year goes on. All they're saying is, things are going to change now so everyone, be prepared to change.
They may have omitted this word in the past but currently it is a reflection of a meaningful change in policy.
This change is a recognition that, only giving benefits to Taiwan (ECFA; allowing practically zero import tax of Taiwanese goods sold into mainland China; all kinds of respecting Taiwan's one-sided political assertions at the expense of the mainland's positions, etc.) without ANY teeth, is a bad policy that need to be updated.
What had worked to preserve peace 15 years ago no longer work, when the DPP is actively engaged in separation tactics, deliberate provocations (to the point of complete silliness--an incident ongoing right now, where Taiwanese coast guards caused the deaths of two mainland fishermen, with ongoing refusal to apologize, recognize any fault, outright lies that keep getting discovered in embarrassing ways a day or two after the lie , claiming no video evidence existed though the ship + 4 guards are all supposed video all incidents, refusal to give up the dead bodies or allowing the mainland to participate in examination/dissection for cause of death, etc.), and continuation of anti-China education in their public school system.
What this is not, however, is a sign of imminent invasion or whatever, which seems to be the main implication whenever Western media wrote about Taiwanese things. They deliberately fail to point out that there are like 100 steps the mainland can take, going from inconveniencing Taiwan to outright economically devastate Taiwan, before reaching any kind of hot conflict.
Good context, thank you comrade. I still think it's profoundly stupid for them to focus on the omission of one word from a statement, and that its omission may not directly, exactly reflect what you've listed (I would guess most of the 100 steps you mention they could take towards reunification would fall under the category of peaceful for example), but you're absolutely right that things are changing.
Even if the phrasing change does directly reflect one aspect of a shifting policy, the phrasing change in and of itself isn't particularly notable when better ways explaining the overall the shift exist. But this was the easiest thing to fearmonger with.
I assume they've spelled this out other ways more directly than playing word games?
Actually, they haven't, lol.
The focus on one word has to do with how the CPC announces its policy. George Yeo has described interpreting the CPC's policy announcement akin to interpreting the Catholic Church's proclamations. Each year they announce their current updated position, and everyone (including all the party bureaucrats who will be executing policy, the Chinese ppl, media, etc.) compare the current version with last year's version to see what is the change that is now being promoted by the central government. That is, the differences between the 2 texts IS the policy change xD
So, in fact, they are doing the right thing by this narrow focus on a word or two. What they are doing deliberately WRONG, though, is to interpret it only for their own fearmongering purpose.
In fact, the very vagueness and ambiguity of broadcasting policy this way is deliberate: doing so allows local officials to (1) implement policy changes in ways that fit local situations, and (2) have some creativity and flexibility in coming up with potential ways to implement the policy change.
So really, the CPC's policy changes are always a direction to move toward, a general result aimed to be achieved, by a certain time line, without any specific steps as to how.
And in the specific case for Taiwan, (3) this is the CPC itself allowing themselves the ambiguity and flexibility to change policy on Taiwan depending on how things work out as this year goes on. All they're saying is, things are going to change now so everyone, be prepared to change.
thats... really helpful and not at all frustrating