Zhao Ziyang (
In the light of its repressive tactics, the regime is obviously still fearful of democracy and freedom. Many old friends of Zhao's were unable to pay their final respects to him and offer condolences to his family members. Only a handful of the powerful in government could communicate with Zhao's family, while members of the public eager to pay their respects were savagely beaten by police.
Although Jia Qinglin (賈慶林), chairman of the People's Political Consultative Conference, attended the funeral and represented the Chinese government in expressing condolences, Zhao is still defined by the government as a comrade who made a grave mistake amid the political upheavals of the summer of 1989.
Beijing's reluctance to rehabilitate Zhao's reputation shows that although China is adopting a liberal approach in economic development, it remains an authoritarian regime and is ignorant of the concepts of democracy and human rights. China's leadership will not ignore any force that could possibly challenge the rule of the Communist Party. Beijing's animosity toward the Falun Gong -- the so-called "evil cult" -- is the result of its own instability, and in the face of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre. But democratic change, embodied by Zhao, is certainly a threat.
This side of the Taiwan Strait is quite familiar with China's psychological responses to moves toward reform. Taiwan has seen the 228 Incident, the Sun Li-jen (孫立人) and Lei Chen (雷震) cases, and the Kaohsiung Incident -- all examples of injustice that have taken place here. These injustices were covered up by the former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime.
It may be that the governments responsible for these types of injustices feel uneasy, but under an authoritarian regime, the truth rarely emerges. But when a dictator loses power or dies, these injustices spring up like seeds after spring rain, and the heavier the force that presses down on them, the stronger they will push upward. The revelation of past injustices here has left indelible scars on the record of the Chiang family's rule.
China's head-in-the-sand approach towards Zhao's political record is an indication of its willingness to deny reality, and of the gulf that separates it from the values that characterize civilized nations. Because of what Zhao represents, his passing could serve as a platform on which the Chinese government could show to its people and the international community that it is capable of facing up to historical errors, and that it is willing to correct past mistakes. Beijing has missed this opportunity.
Zhao was not treated fairly. This was a matter of regret for him personally, and also a matter of regret for the Chinese people and for their current leaders.
"A grave mistake," will not be the final judgement on the Tiananmen Square Massacre and Zhao's trying to prevent it. Zhao's death is akin to an insect hibernating beneath the earth, waiting for spring. When democracy eventually takes hold in China, history will remember how its present rulers conducted themselves.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the