Everyone around the world remembers the Tiananmen Massacre that took place on June 4, 1989 in Beijing. A peaceful protest by students and workers was brutally squashed by the country's authoritarian leaders and their mono-spectacled "People's Liberation Army" (PLA).
To make things worse, no one in the controlling Chinese Communist Party has yet been held responsible, or even accountable. In China the Tiananmen massacre is officially treated as something that never even happened. If a person in China is caught talking about it, they could go to jail, or worse.
China's "peaceful rise?" Let history speak for itself. Everyone knows that the "peaceful liberation" of Tibet was anything but. People also know that China is secretly trying to push out Tibetans by exporting migrant Han Chinese into Tibet.
The history of Tibet and the similar ongoing plight of China's Uighurs, added to the Machiavellian methods Beijing employed at Tiananmen, proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Taiwan is looking at a wolf in wolf's clothing across the Strait. Even Hong Kong's `democracy' is facing the lies that China puts forth every day.
And "Chinese Macau"? It is nothing more than a corrupt playground for the rich few hailing from Shanghai to Beijing, while the majority of the Chinese people's needs are neglected. But Tiananmen's ghost is a legacy and a message that will not go away. In fact, it is back and stronger than ever. And just as one man stood in front of the PLA's column of tanks, now 23 million Taiwanese face the Chinese military threat from across the Strait.
If Taiwan holds high its "Peace and Democracy" sign in front of Beijing's leaders, in the spirit of Tiananmen, will China's tanks still be able to roll over Taiwan with the whole world watching? And if Taiwan spoke loudly and if China responded by force, would the world hold China accountable? Better still, will the authorities in China hold themselves accountable -- once and for all?
Kevin Larson
Chiayi
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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