What is Glaser deliberately evading by pretending to be the victim?

Global Times

Recently, some American politicians and scholars have been making an issue of UN Resolution 2758, with the purpose of distorting the one-China principle that is widely recognized internationally. Among them, the German Marshall Fund scholar Bonnie Glaser has released a report and invited senior officials from the US State Department to hold a high-profile seminar, causing a commotion.

In response to this poor-quality performance, the Global Times published a commentary on June 11, exposing the legal errors, logical loopholes, and political harm of the Glaser Report, the Taiwan International Solidarity Act, and the latest assertions of US State Department officials, from legal, historical and political perspectives. On June 22, the newspaper published another article revealing the “grey policy supply chain” behind Glaser’s two-year production of two reports. Unsurprisingly, Ms. Glaser, the main instigator of the two reports, immediately took on a victim stance on social media platform X, claiming that the Global Times launched a “personal attack” on her.

However, Glaser’s response was clearly evasive and vague. Instead of addressing the academic questions directly, she deliberately avoided the core issues and tried to shift the focus by playing the victim. Glaser immediately claimed to be “thrilled,” suggesting that she had “struck a very sensitive nerve in Beijing” and received a “personal attack.” This seems to feign ignorance.

As an active veteran scholar on Taiwan-related affairs, she has not only engaged in shaping policies on Taiwan-related issues toward China, consolidating her position in the academic circle by selling her connections in Washington, but also traveled between Taiwan and the mainland presenting herself as a “scout” and “messenger,” attempting to establish relationships with various parties. The Taiwan authorities have regarded her as a “distinguished guest” and “a pro-Taiwan scholar,” establishing a long-standing and strong interest chain. It is because of this that Glaser has been able to take on important projects such as attacking Resolution 2758 to obstruct reunification and support “Taiwan independence.”

Glaser is very clear about what Washington and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities need. Recently, she has taken the initiative to work with the US government and Congress, deliberately provoking Resolution 2758 and the one-China principle, and actively serving the political calculations of the collusion between the US and “Taiwan independence” secessionists. Glaser must be mentally prepared for China’s clarification of the truth and stern criticism, so there is no need to pretend to be “thrilled.”

In fact, just like the consistent “strategic ambiguity” rhetoric of the US side, when Glaser said she received a “personal attack,” it is more like a kind of “excitement that is hard to contain.” As a “pro-Taiwan independence” policy peddler, Glaser certainly does not want her report to sink into oblivion, but rather hopes to stir up waves. Riding on the bandwagon of American political correctness in the academic field, she elevates her own value by portraying herself as a “leading academic warrior against the Chinese mainland supporting Taiwan.” At the same time, unable to answer the question raised by Global Times about the “grey policy supply chain” and how she maneuvered in the business dealings between the US and Taiwan, Glaser pretends to cover up her past by pretending to be the victim.

It should be noted that Glaser is certainly not “fighting alone,” she serves the three major circles of the American political and academic intelligence community, the military-industrial complex, and the “pro-Taiwan independence” and anti-China industrial chain. She is a cog in this hegemonic interference machine, a “hired hand” for specific political forces pushing an anti-China agenda.

Faced with well-founded academic criticism and exposure of the truth from the Chinese side, Glaser turns a deaf ear and avoids discussing the core issues with a “Tai Chi” approach. She seems to believe that “if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth,” still mindlessly repeating that “China distorts Resolution 2758.” She completely ignores the fact that China has refuted her errors in perception in a systematic and in-depth way and has clearly pointed out who the real purveyor of historical nihilism and cognitive deception is.

In this context, we understand why, as a “scholar,” Glaser did not return to the academic and policy fields to discuss issues, analyze right and wrong, but instead cunningly threw out the absurd accusation of “personal attack,” creating a certain psychological implication of “an independent scholar being defamed, politically bullied, and threatened with security” by misleading the public. She attempted to shift focus and seize the high ground of political correctness, transforming herself from a challenger to the authority of the United Nations and Chinese sovereignty into a “victim of authoritarian oppression,” lowering a serious political and legal issue concerning China to the level of irrational mudslinging. This set of sophistry is skillfully used, deeply rooted in the essence of American political correctness in the public opinion war.

Nevertheless, we must remind here that even if they avoid answering the questions and comments of Chinese scholars and dare not face the “grey policy supply chain” exposed by the Chinese media, this cannot conceal the fact that Glaser and her likes have long been whitewashing the “Taiwan independence” advocacy, providing academic support, policy recommendations, and public opinion for the continuous hollowing out of the “one-China policy” by the US.