So are the quotation marks because they are actually quoting or because of some other reason?...
In this article it seems to me that they do beyond quoting.
If you count Taiwan as a part to be unified under CCP rule, then by similar accounts you may as well argue that Iran and Iraq as parts to be unified under CCP rule.
From the Wikipedia page on Taiwan [1], check out the Chronological phases on the right, you can see that Taiwan has been ruled by different regimes:
* Prehistory to 1624
* Dutch Formosa 1624–1662
* Spanish Formosa 1626–1642
* Kingdom of Tungning 1661–1683
* Qing rule 1683–1895
* Japanese rule 1895–1945
* Republic of China rule 1945–present
Among them:
- the Kingdom of Tungning was a loyalist to Ming dynasty when Qing dynasty was ruling mainland China,
- later Qing dynasty partly ruled Taiwan,
- now the Repulic of China is ruling Taiwan when CCP is ruling mainland China.
Then one may ask why Taiwan should be a part to be unified under CCP rule, as Xi implies, instead of being ruled by the Republic of China.
One argument is that Taiwan has been ruled by regimes associated with Mainland China in the past (loyalist to Ming dynasty after it lost, then partly by Qing dynasty), hence by extension to be ruled by the current ruler of mainland China, CCP.
But if you accept this argument, then you may notice that the Mongol empire (Yuan dynasty) once ruled Iran and Iraq and more [2]. If we ignore the past, then we may ask if Taiwan should be ruled by the mainland Chinese regime, CCP, or should be a sovereign country ruled by the Republic of China as the President of Taiwan said [3].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Taiwan
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire
[3]: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/taiw...
Again, the situation is exactly like Germany and Korea. China is currently split and this is an issue of reunification.
Taiwan is part of China and the last territory of the Republic of China, whose government was kicked out of the mainland by the communist. Today is national day in Taiwan and that commemorates the fall of the Empire and the founding of the Republic of China...
Now, some people in Taiwan are opposed to reunification because of the current regime on the mainland, some are opposed to reunification full stop and want Taiwan to remain an independent country. That's the factual situation.
But calling into question the term 'reunification' is purely propaganda in order to paint the PRC as trying to invade a foreign country like if they wanted to invade Vietnam or another neighbour. From the West's POV this is a standard divide and conquer strategy.
Which ‘China’? The political China, or the cultural China, or ethnic China (ie, with a majority heritage from Chinese descent), or what?
How do you conclude that Taiwan is part of China? And what does it have to do with Xi’ speech or CCP rule?
> But calling into question the term 'reunification' is purely propaganda...
Taiwan has de facto sovereignty, and with a majority support against unification [1]. This is the current status.
So the quote around ‘reunification’ is reflecting the current status.
> ... in order to paint the PRC as trying to invade a foreign country like if they wanted to invade Vietnam or another neighbour.
Sending fighter jets and and bombers to Taiwan sounds more like invasion than ‘reunification’ [2], if you ask me.
If you say the situation is exactly like Germany, are you suggesting that Germany was reunified through military?
And what should happen if the majority of Taiwanese do not want ‘unification’ [1]? Should Taiwan be ‘reunified’ against their will?
[1]: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/taiwan-experiencing...
[2]: https://www.economist.com/china/2021/10/09/china-is-ratcheti...
It's a quotation, so they've used quotation marks. It's not a mystery.
Of course if it's a direct quotation then quotation marks are appropriate, but then it becomes something else when a term is always between quotation marks throughout the article. For instance:
"Peaceful "reunification" best meets the overall interests of the Taiwanese people, but China will protect its sovereignty and unity, he added."
Why is 'reunification' quoted there?
Since you mention the BBC, I've noticed that they now always write "democratic Taiwan" instead of just "Taiwan"...
Because it's a quotation. Someone other than the journalist said it. The quotation marks let you know that.
This is not neutral at all.
I think you've got it backwards - the point is to be fastidiously neutral.
Some people think it's reunification, some people think it isn't. So instead of taking one side and saying what they think, they just tell you what the relevant person said. They aren't quoting a whole sentence, as it comes from a speech and they want to make it understandable without having to read the whole thing.
It's supposed to be simple reporting, not opinion. Especially if you look at the venue - it's a news agency.
This is all totally normal, completely above-board, best-practice journalism. I have no idea why people push back against it.
Are you possibly confusing quotation marks with scare quotes? That's not what these are. They aren't making a point using the quotation marks. They're trying to not make a point. Just to convey the facts.
Of course some people are against reunification but trying to push the narrative that this is not a matter of reunification really is propaganda and not fact.
What I quoted is not neutral journalism. Neutral journalism on this issue is extremely rare.
It has become a widespread trick to push a narrative under the cover of being neutral or irrelevant facts. Clever use of quotation marks under the pretext that not everyone agrees, systematic use of 'democratic Taiwan' are 2 examples of subtle and clever bias when it comes to reporting of cross-straight relations. Another one is today's reporting on the BBC for the 10th October (national day of ROC), which was not even subtle.
But it's hard for the public who does not know about an issue and trust what they are told. And of course there is one so blind as those who will not see.
I don't even know which side you think they're taking! So it can't be that strong a stance can it.
It's a legitimate use of quotations IMO as it clarifies the text, in particular the relationship between the writer (the journalist) and the originator of the message being relayed and interpreted.
Source: was a professional writer.