Last Tuesday, Chinese police shot dead at least three villagers during protests in Dongzhou Village, Guangdong Province, over forced appropriation of land for the construction of a wind farm. The protest deteriorated into a battle between the police and the villagers when relatives were not granted access to the bodies of those who had been killed.
Officials blocked the release of the story for three days, but it became public last Friday when it was revealed that the death toll may have been 30 or more -- which would make it one of the bloodiest crackdowns on protesters since the 1989 student-led protest in Beijing's Tiananmen Square.
According to Reuters, quoting Chinese Security Minister Zhou Yongkang (
The official figures for the number of confrontations between the public and the police probably underestimate the scale of such incidents, and the Chinese government has been glossing over the extent of the unrest. The international community is not convinced by Beijing's claims about the benefits of "social democracy with Chinese characteristics," and is even getting a little sick of them. It is beginning to realize that Beijing's sense of superiority is based on the government's willingness to shoot and kill civilians in order to retain its grip on power. After unleashing the military on the Tiananmen protesters, the government took no political or moral responsibility for its actions. It cannot be criticized by the Chinese media, and cannot be voted out of office.
On Oct. 19, the Information Office of China's State Council issued a document of more than 30,000 characters titled Building Political Democracy in China. The document put special emphasis on the fact that "China's democracy is a people's democracy under the leadership of the CCP [Chinese Communist Party]." This should be revised to state that China's democracy is one in which the people can be massacred by the CCP.
This document has been regarded by many in the international community as a white paper on China's political development. The document notes that democracy springs from the people and is not imposed from outside. The government's own words go to show that Beijing has no intention of introducing democracy in China.
The question must be asked: If China has not achieved democracy in the course of its 5,000-year history, are its people condemned to be denied it forever? Would not any benevolent government seek to learn from other nations and bring about a more civilized system of rule? Is not a system of counting heads preferable to one of breaking them?
The people of Taiwan are concerned about the development of democracy in China. They sincerely hope that China will attain democracy as soon as possible, and that it will not lightly resort to armed conflict to resolve the cross-strait impasse.
But from what we have seen of this massacre of villagers, the Chinese government has yet to learn the lesson of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. If it treats its own people with such violence, it would surely act with even greater harshness against the people of Taiwan. Surely those who advocate unification with China cannot be blind to this?
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants. On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS