People have wondered for years what the long-term effects of China's one-child policy would be. US President George W. Bush's recent visit to Tsinghua University in Beijing ought to have given us some food for thought.
Several of the young men and women in the audience Bush addressed were born after the one-child policy was adopted in 1979. They are the first generation of "little emperors," as the children born in the 1980s have come to be called. These young people are strangers to war and revolution. They see China as it is -- a modern nation where opportunities to succeed abound. They wear the newest fashions and dye their hair. They watch MTV and read fiction on the Internet. But one fact remains: they did not grow up in an open society; they do not understand the meaning of dissent.
Tsinghua students are coming of age in a society that seems extremely open. Financial markets have been slowly unlocked, Hollywood culture has infiltrated all corners of society, high technology has found its niche and BMWs and Audis are the new rage.
Yet behind all the glamour and glitz lie serious questions about the future of China. When asked for his opinion on the Taiwan situation, Bush responded that he hoped there would be a "peaceful solution."
"Why can't you use the phrase `peaceful reunification?'" one student asked. "Why does the US continue to show an allegiance to Taiwan after all these years?"
Had China's media been more open while these students were growing up, they would have learned the history of the opposition party in Taiwan and they would have read about Taiwan's presidential elections. They would know about the Formosa magazine incident of the 1970s and that President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), was the defense lawyer for dissidents imprisoned as a result of that incident. They would also know the details of the peaceful movement led by Tsinghua alumni and others that culminated in bloodshed at Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989.
They are familiar with none of this history because the Chinese media have kept this information from them. Hollywood films and foreign cars, Internet cafes and cellphones are not evidence of a fully open society.
Americans are seasoned missionaries of democracy. They often, however, take one thing for granted. Americans enjoy the benefits of an open media. They make their decisions on the basis of the information provided them. Every American has access to a multitude of views and the freedom to disagree without fear of repercussions. There are heavy responsibilities that come with such freedom, and the system has many quirks and more than a few faults. But, they have unfettered access to the information they need. People in China do not.
Talk of democracy, of popular elections and freedom of religion is useless in a society without a free and open media.
Chinese President Jiang Zemin (江澤民) is not a revolutionary of the old ilk. He has never been to war. He has guided China into an era of unprecedented prosperity.
In almost every respect, China has striven to create a system that resembles that of the US. Politicians and ordinary citizens alike have a deep respect for American ideals, if not always for American methods. But just as the US has its ideals, so does China.
Jiang's chosen successor, Vice President Hu Jintao (
Bush and former president Bill Clinton may be perhaps the two luckiest presidents in Washing-ton's long and winding history with China. The US can no longer claim Russia as its enemy. It is the only superpower on earth. The US government and the American people have a tremendous opportunity before them and an audience ripe for mature, cautious guidance.
American presidents should not, however, be missionaries. China has been invaded, its cities carved into concessions policed by foreign governments. Its history of foreign missionary presence is complex and troubled. The word "religion" and everything it connotes cannot be easily thrown around in China.
Democratic elections are a given in the US. But more importantly, injustices at polling places around the country are publicized and addressed because of America's open media and a legal sys-tem that provides recourse, not because the US has a democratic election system in place.
There is nothing more critical to China's future than the creation of a free and open media and a legal system that protects the rights of all citizens. When International Standard Book Numbers (ISBNs) become available to all publishers -- private, institutional and governmental -- when independent publishers and freelance writers are given the opportunity to work according to international publishing standards from within the borders of their own country, only then will China be capable of progressing toward discussion of a national electoral system.
Americans must confront the reality that the US cannot remain the only global superpower indefinitely. The EU, India and China, all represent a complex challenge to the current world structure. China has been patient. It has withstood revolutions, national disasters, the bombing of an embassy, arguments over airspace and a renegade province. It has a historical complacency that the US could never fully understand or accept.
Those "little emperors" in Bush's audience last month are short on patience and long on nationalistic pride and fervor. Unless they are afforded a full view of US society, politics and people, unless they have the opportunity to read the unedited texts of speeches given by Chen and other members of Taiwan's communities, they will be unable to make truly informed decisions. And that can only be a precursor of trouble to come.
One day, Tsinghua students and faculty will have access to all the news and information that much of the rest of the world takes for granted. Only then will China have an open society. Above all else, a free media should be the focus of US policy in China.
Bei Ling, a poet and research associate at Harvard's Fairbank Center for East Asian Research, is the executive director of the Independent Chinese PEN Center.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers