If Deng Xiaoping (
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been in power for 54 years. This period can be divided into the Mao Zedong (
The main complaints that people have about the present system in China -- its abnormal and lopsided economic development and its political conservatism and retrogression -- also have their source in Deng. The more China reveres Deng, the clearer it becomes that there is no hope for reform. Deng has been dead seven years now, but his successors continue to be loyal to him.
During the 16th National Congress, Mao's former secretary Li Ruei (
Jiang has followed the advice implicit in Deng's words by centralizing power, and the Hu-Wen regime seems incapable of escaping from this paradigm. Deng categorically rejected the separation of powers and parliamentary democracy. Given this, now that the 4th plenary session of the party central committee says it aims to "change the administrative functions of the CCP," is there really potential for any significant breakthrough?
Recently, former Singaporean prime minister Lee Kuan Yew (
In 1982 Deng told then British prime minister Margaret Thatcher that if he did not get back Hong Kong in 1997, he would have to step down and retire from history's stage.
He also repeatedly told various foreign representatives that if China adopted a multi-party system, civil war would engulf the whole country. Jiang and Hu haven't the kind of authority to frighten off foreigners that Deng had, but surely they keep his warning constantly in mind.
As for the unity of China's territory, Deng's successors have only been able to parrot his concept of "one country, two systems." But this "great theory" is little more than a way of cheating oneself and others. After all, the Hong Kong and Taiwan issues make China a laughing stock in the international community. Many words are spoken but nothing is ever achieved, and all this is Deng's legacy.
How can China's leaders bring such as vast and complex country into the ranks of modern, civilized nations, if they cannot escape from Deng's legacy?
Jin Zhong is editor-in-chief of Hong Kong-based Open Magazine.
Translated by Ian Bartholomew
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath