China routinely vilifies any comment on its political practices as unwarranted, outside "interference." Yet Beijing is always ready to lecture the US about its policies.
Most recently, China was outraged when US officials met with Martin Lee (
The 1997 reversion of Hong Kong from a colony of Britain to a Special Administrative Region of China was no cause for celebration to anyone who values human liberty above brutal nationalism.
Still, the city's 6.8 million residents value freedom. Hundreds of thousands rallied last year to oppose proposed "anti-subversion" legislation pushed by China. Many of them now are advocating free elections and universal suffrage. But Beijing has responded to talk of democracy with a vitriolic barrage.
Consider China's reaction to past and present presidential races in Taiwan. Equally threatening is the fact that Hong Kong residents, too, can vote, and have favored independent voices. Bai Gang (白鋼), director of the Centre for Public Policy Research at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, complains, "Pro-democracy politicians have serious inadequacies in identification with the country. However, they have the upper hand over the patriotic camp in Hong Kong."
That is, in China's view, the wrong folks are winning elections. As a result, Lee has more popular legitimacy than does Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤).
Obviously, Washington cannot force China to keep its promises to the people of Hong Kong. Still, though Americans cannot enshrine democracy in Hong Kong, they can talk to democrats in Kong Kong.
US Senator Sam Brownback invited Lee to Washington to testify about the situation in Hong Kong. While there, Lee met with a number of legislators, as well as Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
Nothing seditious about any of this. Indeed, Lee stated his faith that China's top leaders would "get it right."
Nevertheless, Chinese apparatchiks were angry about his trip. Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing (
It brings to mind China's earlier attempts to browbeat Washington into not allowing President Chen Shui-bian (
However, there can be no compromise over the US extending its hospitality to those who share its ideals around the globe. People like Martin Lee should be encouraged, not just allowed, to visit the US.
This is an internal affair for Washington. China has no right to interfere.
Martin Lee is optimistic about Hong Kong's future, believing that Chinese leaders "will know ultimately that democracy is not something they should fear."
We must hope he is right, since the US cannot prevent China from suppressing human rights there or even in Hong Kong. But the US certainly should not suppress human rights in the US at China's behest.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US