On June 1, Dr. Jiang Yanyong (
Family and friends assumed that Public Security Bureau police detained them and that the couple would be released after the June 4 anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre of 15 years ago passed. But on June 8, unnamed officials asked the doctors' son to collect some personal effects for his parents, including dentures, and deliver them to the authorities. This was not, of course, the first time someone had been detained without explanation in China, but it was not a good omen.
With China's economy booming, foreign investors flocking, and the country's role in global markets ever more central, the disappearance of this elderly couple hardly caused a break in China's hectic march. But the disappearance underscores the ongoing imbalance between economic and political reforms.
Jiang is no ordinary doctor. He is someone who had long since reached the point in life when he felt compelled by duty and patriotism to step beyond the role of a surgeon and become a public citizen. His odyssey began on June 4, 1989, when he spent a horrific night trying to save hundreds of wounded and dying citizens who flooded through his hospital's 18 operating rooms as the People's Liberation Army fought its way to Tiananmen Square. Jiang, traumatized and anguished, nonetheless kept silence.
However, as the SARS epidemic flared up last year, Jiang realized in April that Health Ministry reports of only 19 confirmed cases of the disease in Beijing were bogus -- he knew of almost 10 times that number. He decided to go public.
"I felt I had to reveal what was happening not just to save China, but to save the world," he said.
His exposure of the SARS epidemic cover-up forced China's government to confront the disease more openly and aggressively, averting a public health catastrophe.
But if Jiang became a hero in the process, he was also marked as the kind of potentially uncontrollable person that the Chinese Communist Party fears. Indeed, the party's worst fears were realized this past March. As the National People's Congress was meeting, Jiang broke his silence by writing a long, heartfelt appeal to the leaders of China. In it, he charged that "a small number of leaders who supported corruption" had resorted to measures on June 4 that were "unprecedented in the world or China" when it used "tanks, machine guns, and other weapons to suppress totally unarmed students and citizens."
In grim detail, his letter de-scribed the bloody mayhem that the slaughter brought to his hospital and the hysteria of ordinary people as they arrived to find children and loved ones dead. Without deference toward or fear of the party, Jiang castigated China's leaders for the way that they "mobilized all sorts of propaganda to fabricate lies and used high-handed measures to silence the people across the country."
Finally, Jiang implored the party to re-assess the 1989 student movement by "reversing its verdict" from "counter-revolutionary rebellion" or "political storm" to "patriotic acts that had the support of the overwhelming majority of the people in Beijing and the country."
"Our party must address the mistakes it has made," he concluded unambiguously. "Anyone whose family members were unjustly killed should voice the same request."
Before giving his name, address, and phone number, he said, "Of course, I have considered the consequences that I might encounter after writing this letter. But I have decided to tell you all the facts."
How does one reconcile an isolated retrograde incident such as the disappearance of an elderly Chinese couple with the hopeful progress of the "Chinese economic miracle" that has so transformed this once backward land?
China today is a contradiction. The tensions between its increasingly open economy and its still closed political system and institutions (established during the Stalin era in the 1950s) make China the most conflicted nation of consequence in the world today.
The old state planner Chen Yuan (陳雲) once cautioned that Chinese reformers had created "a birdcage economy" in which a capitalist bird was growing within a socialist cage. His inference was that unless party leaders were careful, this capitalist bird would literally burst out of its socialist cage, spelling an end to China's Marxist-Leninist revolution.
Indeed, the old socialist economic birdcage has now been largely burst by China's capitalist reforms, releasing with a vengeance a mutant "people's republic" into the global marketplace of consumerism.
But the demolition process that has transformed or razed so many of China's old Stalinist economic institutions has not been matched by a demolition of stultifying political structures. Although Chinese leaders speak of "one country, two systems" as their formula for governing Hong Kong -- and possibly Taiwan some day -- their slogan is far more relevant to China itself, given the co-existence of a capitalist economic system within a Leninist political system.
Jiang may become a millionaire, wear any clothes he likes, redecorate his living room, even buy a car, but he cannot inform the public about an epidemic or write government officials an honest letter of admonition. Does this matter? That depends on whether one believes that Leninist capitalism is a viable and stable form of government for China over the long term.
Orville Schell is a noted historian of China and a dean at the University of California at Berkeley.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
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