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 Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS