The conditions under which Zhao Ziyang (趙紫陽) lived at the time of his death, in utter isolation from Chinese society due to an illegally imposed 16-year house arrest, shames both Chinese justice and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Zhao's persecution was the persecution of a leader who dedicated himself for more than a decade to groundbreaking efforts that became the foundations of China's economic reform. In the late 1970s, peasants had long since lost their rights to own their land, owing to collectivization and the establishment of the People's Commune. It is a right they have never regained. Zhao, however, was the first to advocate giving autonomy back to the peasants and so initiated the first pilot tests to abolish the People's Commune.
Chinese industry had been transformed into subsidiaries of government through nationalization and central planning. Zhao was the first to propose "expanded autonomy for Chinese enterprises" and "restoration of a healthy relationship between government and industry." Expanded autonomy for enterprises and the peasantry were critical first steps whose success led eventually to full-blown economic reform.
These were among the many incremental victories Zhao won to help China's people break out of the suffocating stagnation of Maoist socialism. As China's premier, Zhao implemented 10 years of economic reforms that brought steady progress in which the people, especially the peasantry, enjoyed tangible improvements.
But Zhao was also the only CCP leader to propose a political reform package to tackle China's system of one-party rule. The party's unchallenged monopoly on political power systematically ensured that every mistake it made -- such as the dreadful decade of the Cultural Revolution -- turned into a prolonged nationwide crisis.
For genuine and long-term stability, Zhao proposed reforms that ultimately aimed at the legalization and systemization of democracy. He wished to establish the kind of democratic politics that could sup-port and nurture a healthy market economy. Although the short-term practical objectives of Zhao's political reforms were limited by the circumstances in which they were proposed, the measures were all aimed at containing CCP power and represented a concrete step toward returning, peacefully, power to China's people. Zhao's package -- a sharp break with Mao Zedong's (毛澤東) totalitarianism -- was approved by the 13th Party Congress, officially the highest authority within the CCP.
During his 20 months as general secretary, Zhao created a culture in which the Politburo refrained from interfering in the courts, and he halted its attempts to control literature and the arts. He abolished the policy of enterprises being run by party organizations and the system by which fa ren ("legal representatives") were the core of enterprises.
Unfortunately, Zhao's reforms were terminated upon his fall from power. The dreadful result was the indiscriminate denial of civil rights and the principles of democracy, and the rise of what today's leaders call "socialism with Chinese characteristics" -- a bitter euphemism for unchecked party and government power entwined with commercial interests.
Zhao's fate is also a chilling reminder of other injustices that are on the consciences of those now in power. The only reason for Zhao's continued ill treatment was his opposition to the violent repression of the Tiananmen Square protest in 1989. It should have been his decision to make as general secretary, but things were not as they should have been.
It should be remembered that former general secretary Hu Yaobang (胡耀邦), who had been forced to step down two years earlier by Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) because of his liberal stance, died in April 1989, triggering spontaneous and peaceful student demonstrations in Beijing, which spread across the country. Half a million college students in Beijing alone were involved in this movement.
It lasted 50 days and was heartily supported by Beijing residents and people all around the country, from all walks of life. Zhao pointed out to the Politburo that the sentiments expressed by the students and residents in their commemoration of Hu, in their protests against corruption, and their desire for democracy were really the same sentiments that they themselves held. He believed that it should be possible to resolve the student protests and respect the principles of democracy and the rule of law.
Under Zhao's direction, the Politburo and its standing committee called for dialogue with the students. This hopeful direction changed completely, however, when Deng revealed his desire for a violent crackdown.
In the end, it came down to a fight among five members of the Politburo Standing Committee: Li Peng (李鵬) and Yao Yiling (姚依林) sought to deploy the military. Zhao opposed this. Qiao Shi (喬石) and Hu Qili (胡啟立) initially sided with Zhao, but then withdrew their support and, instead, asked Deng to make the final decision.
With deep divisions evident, Deng chose to bypass all existing institutions, the party's Politburo, the Central Committee and the National People's Congress and its Standing Committee. Without further discussion, Deng mobilized 500,000 troops to enter Beijing to crack down on the unarmed students and civilians. The Tiananmen Square Massacre was a tragedy for China, and another tragedy for the 20th century. Sixteen years have passed, but the pain remains, buried in the hearts and minds of the people.
In the years that have passed, China's leaders were responsible not only for Zhao's unlawful house arrest but also for a systematic effort to erase his name from history. But their attempts to conceal the truth about the past only reveal their weakness and their shamelessness. For there is one thing they cannot change: Zhao remains with us, in the Chinese people's ongoing struggle for rights and democracy.
Bao Tong, former director of the Office of Political Reform of the CCP Central Committee, was secretary to Zhao Ziyang from 1980 to 1985.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS