Today -- June 4 -- is the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. Looking back at the past 15 years, it is difficult to see the slightest indication on the part of the Chinese government to either come to a better understanding of the meaning of democracy and human rights, or to at least show some remorse or regret for brutally suppressing the student democracy movement.
However, it is true that Beijing has finally chosen to describe the bloody crackdown with milder and neutral terms. On Tuesday, China's Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao (劉建超) called it "political turmoil," contrary to the typical characterization used by Beijing of "anti-revolutionary riot." However, this mere change of wording should not be interpreted as a change of attitude by Beijing, but as a result of discussions among EU members regarding the possible lifting of a 15-year old ban on arms sales to China that was imposed following the Tiananmen Square Massacre. It was reported earlier this week that British Prime Minister Tony Blair is likely to back France and Germany in urging the lifting of the ban. Beijing opted to adopt a milder and less high-profile stance so as not to ruin its chances of getting the ban lifted.
Of course this also raises the question: if there has been no change whatsoever in terms of Beijing's attitude toward either the Tiananmen Square Massacre or democracy and human rights, why lift the ban now? Shouldn't it be lifted only when its original purpose of compelling improvement from China in these areas has been accomplished?
Anyone who pays any attention to what Liu went on to say on Tuesday can readily see that the Chinese government has not changed one bit. Liu defended the crackdown on the students by saying that "[it] played a very good role in stabilizing the situation, which enabled China to develop its economy and make contributions to peace and development of the world."
This has been the consistent policy of Beijing since it ended the "closed-door policy" in the 1980s -- that is, to develop the economy and to evolve into a military super-power, but to say no to all demands for democratic reforms and respect for human rights.
This attitude is further demonstrated by its move to tighten its watch on political activists and relatives of victims of the Tiannanmen Square Massacre in the run up to the 15th anniversary of the incident. Secret police have been closely following these people, taping their phones, and even placing them under house arrest. The sole purpose of all this is to prevent any form of public memorial for the incident, which would only be interpreted as a challenge to the authority of the Chinese government. A countless number of political dissidents who participated in the demonstration in Tiananman Square, as well as their sympathizers, continue to be imprisoned in China. The US State Department expressed concern by openly stating its opposition to "efforts to limit freedom of speech" and urging "China to not restrict its citizens from engaging in debates on important and sensitive issues of public interests."
As for the people of Hong Kong, this attitude on the part of Beijing should not be surprising, because they have learned from past experience of China's complete rejection of any form of democratic reform and respect for human rights. However, it is too late for the people of Hong Kong to do much about it.
But there is still a chance for the people of Taiwan.
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