It is already being compared to the Tiananmen Square democracy movement in terms of its scale and social impact.
Others are calling it 701 -- a reference to the month and day of the protest march last week that brought 500,000 people onto the streets of Hong Kong.
The July 1 march has proved a seismic moment in Hong Kong's post-handover history. The demonstration of pure people power over the last week has now brought an arrogant and authoritarian leadership to the brink of collapse.
The national security law, seen by critics as draconian and the most serious threat to Hong Kong's freedoms since the territory was returned to Chinese sovereignty, has been derailed -- just two days before legislators were due to vote on it.
More significantly, Hong Kong's Beijing-appointed leader Tung Chee-hwa (
Anyone in Tung's position should resign, said Allen Lee, a Hong Kong delegate to the National Peoples Congress in Beijing, as news of the government's retreat broke early on Monday. By Monday afternoon, it seemed only a matter of time.
A week ago, the political outlook had been distinctly different. There was to be a march and up to 100,000 were expected to take part.
At the time, Tung and his ministers insisted it would not delay legislation, with one of them, Secretary for Security Regina Ip (
That day out turned into the biggest public protest in Hong Kong since 1989 when 1 million people thronged the streets following the Tiananmen Square massacre. July 1's sea of black shirts worn in protest at the national security law sent Tung a message he could not ignore.
Stunned into indecision, it then took four days before he was able to give a comprehensive response, announcing at a press conference three major concessions to the law.
Nevertheless, he continued to insist the legislation had to be put to the vote yesterday, describing it as a constitutional duty and a matter relating to the national dignity and glory of the Chinese race.
The decision to stand firm on the vote in the face of the protest was a fatal error. Already, James Tien (
Tien had flown to Beijing where he said officials told him they would not object to a delay. He resigned Sunday evening and his party indicated they wanted the bill deferred, leaving Tung facing certain defeat if they pressed ahead with the legislation yesterday.
In the space of seven days, Tung has seen his traditional support base crumble. Always unpopular with the public, whose approval counts for little in a legislature that is only in part directly elected, he could always count on the backing of Beijing and Hong Kong's conservative business leaders.
Last week, however, visiting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (
Later in the week, business tycoon Henry Fok reportedly cut portions of a pre-released speech at an anniversary dinner praising Tung for his leadership.
Tung's fate, and that of some key ministers such as Ip, is sealed and it is now a question of whether they are kept in office until the national security bill issue is eventually resolved, or whether they are replaced immediately.
The key questions remaining: What breed of political animal will take the place of Tung? What will Beijing do now that calls for democratization and free elections in Hong Kong are gaining in volume each day.
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