I find this statement hard to take. It feels like propaganda to me. Emotional issues are not without context.
Is it being an "emotional" issue more correct than it being an issue of (1) educational indoctrination, (2) explicit media based propaganda, and (3) lack of access to opposing view points? Clearly there is some systemic explanation for people's emotions.
If the Chinese government preached the values of "do unto others as you would have done to you" rather than "we must right the wrongs of the century of embarrassment" would we see this being an "emotional issue." If the issue of Taiwan were cast in the light of "if you were Taiwanese, how would you feel about China?" do you think it would still be an "unstoppable irrational force"? If the Chinese government preached values like tolerance and diversity, do you think the Chinese people would have the stomach for dominating another people?
China, rightfully, was angered by colonial transgression against it, but then wishes to be a colonial power itself, committing the very same evils it faced against less powerful countries. By Chinese standards, it appears that might makes right, so should the world not exercise might against and colonize China, an action that is right under Chinese morality? Or is it a matter of Han Supremacy, where the moral system is built upon the idea of Han superiority and rules for other nations that don't apply to China itself.
How should I feel empathy for "the Chinese people" when from the outside it appears that they wish to dominate another people?