Surely no one could be surprised by the decision of the Central Standing Committee of China's National People's Congress (NPC) on Monday to bar Hong Kong's people from electing their chief executive in 2007 and all members of the Legislative Council (Legco) in 2008. After all, on April 6 the Central Standing Committee issued a binding interpretation of the Hong Kong Basic Law that said Beijing must give advance approval for any changes in the way the territory's leader and lawmakers are selected. People knew this was coming.
This turn of events -- however predictable it might have been -- was nevertheless disappointing to the people of Hong Kong. The decision was obviously highly inconsistent with Beijing's guarantee to offer Hong Kong a "high degree of autonomy" under the Joint Declaration between China and Britain over the handover of Hong Kong's sovereignty in 1997.
Also disappointed were the US and Britain, which issued statements with respect to the decision. British Foreign Minister Bill Rammell on Monday expressed his concern and the hope to meet with the Chinese ambassador to Britain. On the other hand, US State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher said that the US was "disappointed by the decision."
With all international eyes on it, Beijing remains unfazed, as usual, in facing international pressure and concerns regarding democracy and human rights issues and uses nationalism to justify itself. In fact, its initial response to the international concerns was hostile -- to say the least. For example, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing (
While Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) pledged on Wednesday to "ultimately" allow direct election of the territory's chief executive and legislature, he gave no timeframe. The problem is it has become increasingly difficult to believe the words and promises from Beijing when it comes to democracy. Didn't the people of Hong Kong also have high hopes about the guarantee by Beijing about "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" before the handover?
At least Hong Kong had Britain to advocate its interests prior to 1997. After the handover, who is going to do that? Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa (董建華)? Wasn't he the one who made the recommendations upon which the Central Standing Committee of the NPC based its decision on Monday?
It is time for the world to realize that Beijing has no genuine wish to implement democracy in any part of China. In fact, it has virtually no concept of what democracy is -- as demonstrated by the statement of Qiao Xiaoyang (喬曉陽), deputy secretary-general of the NPC Central Standing Committee, on Tuesday in Hong Kong, that: "Governments who are led by the nose by public opinion are irresponsible." If this reflects the sentiment of the entire Chinese leadership regarding democracy, just about all hopes have been dashed for a democratic breakthrough in any part of China.
In fact, it is probably safe to conclude that Beijing is not only clueless about what democracy is, but it actually fears democracy. Beijing was obviously taken aback by the demonstration in Hong Kong on July 1 last year in which more than 500,000 people participated and which forced Tung to withdraw an anti-subversion bill. After that incident, Beijing probably decided it was high time to put the brakes on demands for democracy, which reinforced its decision to ban popular elections in the region in the immediate future.
Under the circumstances, the people of Taiwan should have even more appreciation for their hard-earned democracy and not be discouraged by recent political controversies over the outcome of the presidential election.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS