The biggest nightmare for China's oligarchy is the fear of losing power. Fifteen years ago, in June 1989, the party felt so threatened that it let loose its army on an ill-organized student movement agitating for a measure of democracy in the country's governance.
This was the Tiananmen massacre. Its reverberations still resound, keeping the ruling Communist Party on edge.
So much so that one of their own, the deposed party general secretary Zhao Ziyang (
The ruling junta has also come down hard on the Falun Gong movement, declaring it an evil cult and putting scores of its adherents into the country's fathomless dungeons. The party seeks to control religious revival in China for fear of creating alternative centers of power.
It is in this context that one would need to understand the party's hysteria over the democracy movement in Hong Kong; a reminder of how things nearly got out of control in 1989. Since the former British colony's reversion to China's sovereignty in mid-1997, it has been governed under a 50-year "one country, two systems" formula, which allows it a fair degree of autonomy with the promise of greater democratization. But Beijing is backing out of this promise. The ruling junta believes that it alone has the power to interpret and decide Hong Kong's future without reference to its people or anybody else. And has severely criticized the US and UK for their unwarranted criticism and interference in its internal affairs. Surprisingly, it has succeeded in warding off sustained international criticism on this score.
Why is this so? An important factor is China's economic and political clout -- not so much the reality of it (though that too is important) but the perception of it.
There is a sense that China is an emerging superpower. Most countries would like to keep their relations with it at a friendly level to maximize real and anticipated economic opportunities.
The case in point is the Chinese premier's recent visits to France and Germany, where he received extravagant treatment and his hosts scrupulously avoided mentioning human rights. Even in the US he was accorded elevated status befitting a head of state. China has acquired a larger-than-life stature as a global power.
This perception is further accentuated because of the US' Iraq quagmire. The US is over-stretched and its global strategy has become hostage to developments in Iraq. It therefore doesn't have much time and resources for other issues, like China's emergence as a strategic rival. Indeed, it looks to China for political support, particularly on the North Korean nuclear proliferation issue. At the same time, the publicity about the maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners has compromised its high moral ground on human rights. The timing is, therefore, right for China.
But China's oligarchy is still worried. And it better be, because it lacks domestic political legitimacy. Hong Kong is a reminder that a measure of autonomy and relative economic prosperity aren't enough to win over people in the absence of democratization.
In the same way, Taiwan is also a serious worry. China, of course, is committed to annex Taiwan, and feels thwarted because of a US commitment to defend Taiwan.
The easiest way, therefore, would be to persuade Washington to abandon or dilute this commitment. Beijing continues to work on this, especially since its enhanced political leverage in the context of US overstretch. Just before US Vice President Dick Cheney's recent Beijing visit, its foreign ministry issued a call for the US "to stop being committed" to the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 underpinning its commitment to defend Taiwan.
In light of its heavy-handed interference in Hong Kong, a democratic Taiwan's incorporation could become the ultimate nightmare for China's oligarchy.
Taiwan is no Hong Kong. Taiwan's population is three times that of Hong Kong, and it has a functioning, well-entrenched democratic system. Unlike Hong Kong, it wasn't a colony of some imperial power, so its people do not have a colonial hangup requiring its return to the motherland. The people have an identity of their own.
Any invasion and subsequent occupation of Taiwan would be a terribly risky proposition. Even its "peaceful" incorporation under a more liberal (than Hong Kong) version of "one country, two systems" will be problematic. Its democratic character will prove corrosive for the communist party's political monopoly. Any attempt to suppress Taiwan's democracy could backfire.
In the circumstances, could it be that China's power-hungry oligarchy might simply continue to mouth the unification slogan while letting Taiwan function in a grey zone of creative ambiguity? That would suit the United States, and might not be so bad for Taiwan's political and economic establishment.
A recently published poll in China found that 5.6 percent of respondents didn't oppose Taiwan's independence. What is surprising is that the government allowed such a survey to be published with even a small minority of its citizens not obsessed with Taiwan's status. Is this a pointer to a gradual shift on China's part?
Sushil Seth is a freelance writer based in Sydney.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS