History takes place when we are not watching. For the whole world to see, four consecutive Saturdays -- the 228 Hand-in-hand Rally on Feb. 28, the 313 Rally on March 13, the presidential election on March 20 and the big pan-blue demonstration on March 27 -- have thoroughly changed the fate of Taiwan and the future of all Chinese.
For pan-blue and pan-green supporters, this has been a peaceful revolution, a revolution where the people of Taiwan have decided their own future. "Fear" was what set off this profoundly moving revolution. One side feared "independence" and the other "unification." Then, due to the dramatic result, 23 million Taiwanese were instantly swept away in a frenzy of rallies.
Although many people are still anxious, worrying over whether the nation will become divided, blue and green supporters in fact need worry no more after this total mobilization of the public.
This has been an excellent example of public mobilization. The people have learned how to express their wishes through peaceful gatherings, and how to use the international media to make their voice heard throughout the world. It has been an unprecedented exercise and, without knowing it, the people have relied on their own intelligence and peaceful demeanor to achieve a revolution.
From another perspective, after watching the presidential election, the Beijing government must understand that an anti-democratic, violent "liberation" of Taiwan by military force will run into the concerted opposition of 23 million Taiwanese, despite China's strong military and almost 500 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan. The possibility of China "liberating" Taiwan by military force is now non-existent.
The rallies have also done away with the possibility of the "one country, two systems" policy being accepted here, the many shortcomings of which were revealed long ago.
Very few Taiwanese know that the "one country, two systems" policy celebrates its 20th anniversary this year. On June 22, 1984, when then Chinese paramount leader Deng Xiaoping (
However, less than seven years have passed since Hong Kong's return to China, and not only has the "one country, two systems" policy failed to induce a Taiwanese capitulation, it is also being seriously challenged in Hong Kong. On June 1 last year, an unprecedented 500,000 people took to the streets of Hong Kong, demanding the replacement of Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa (
During the fervor surrounding Taiwan's presidential election, a meeting of the standing committee of China's National People's Congress decided to interpret articles in Hong Kong's Basic Law dealing with the change of chief executive and the creation of the Legislative Council. The aim was to silence Hong Kong calls for chief executive and Legislative Council general elections, and to warn the people of the territory that they cannot walk down the road of Taiwanese-style democracy.
This action clearly reveals that a "Hong Kong ruled by Hong Kong people" is a birdcage autonomy restricted to mundane matters of daily life.
It is not unexpected that the "one country, two systems" policy has reached a dead end after 20 years. Deng indeed had a vision 20 years ago. Regarding the two incompatible systems -- socialism and capitalism -- Deng said that "this means that within the People's Republic of China, the mainland with its 1 billion people will maintain the socialist system, while Hong Kong and Taiwan continue under the capitalist system."
The differences between Taiwan, Hong Kong and China have long been transferred to the two "new systems," "democracy" and "centralized authoritarianism."
Faced with Taiwan's latest presidential election and seeing the democratic force of the collectively mobilized Taiwanese public, former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (
The people of Taiwan have written democratic history. The March election involving almost 13 million people may change the future of 1.3 billion Chinese.
Ku Lai is a political commentator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the
RSS