Over the past month, Chinese activists have been served a grim reminder that Beijing has yet to understand the value of civil society.
A series of police sweeps has targeted civic groups and dozens have been arrested. Last week police detained Shanghai author Li Jianhong (
The irony of the situation is that civic groups hold the key to resolving many of Beijing's biggest headaches. Where Chinese authorities are dragging their feet, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are pressing for real progress. Their work on everything from caring for AIDS orphans to demanding factory clean-ups promises a better living standard for the lowest social strata.
Many of these groups work to resolve key causes of social unrest, yet Beijing persists with a crackdown on civil society that has strengthened in the past two years and will only contribute to instability, rather than forging Beijing's vision of a "harmonious society."
China's fear of civic groups is no doubt fueled in part by the memory of a Falun Gong sit-in in 1999 in Beijing. The terror of not having foreseen the mobilization of thousands of citizens was a rude awakening for the top political echelon and sparked the policy to eradicate the Falun Gong -- even though the demonstration was apolitical.
But another factor fuels China's fears. Beijing has spent the past two years fretting over tales of Eastern European and Central Asian "color" revolutions. Russia believes these revolutions were Washington-backed moves to contain the extent of Moscow's power, and Chinese President Hu Jintao (
During his term, Hu has backtracked on years of looser reins on civic groups, which have been key to movements such as Ukraine's Orange Revolution.
And as far as Hu is concerned, any civic group is game. This month, 70 people were detained in a raid on a Bible study circle that met outside of the state-controlled religious framework. Beijing targets any organized platform for discussion -- political or apolitical -- that does not fall under its oversight.
But if there's anything more anathema to Beijing than civic groups, it is those with an international connection. So for the same reason Beijing does not recognize the pope or the Dalai Lama, and it largely blocks NGOs with international secretariats from setting up shop.
For that reason, it is surprising and a cause for hope that Beijing has, to some extent, tolerated the existence of Chinese PEN. Its members are no stranger to police harassment, but this latest incident was the first time its year-end meeting was blocked.
For PEN members -- who were given no reason for Beijing's wrath -- it is a clear sign that they will have to fight to keep their foot in the door. Another PEN center, Tibetan PEN, exists only in exile.
Beijing has lost sight of the goal. A flourishing civil society will be key to engaging the government on issues where it has made feeble progress because of corruption.
But the Chinese Communist Party is busy countering NGOs -- or, as Hu allegedly called them in an internal report, the "smokeless guns" of a US-backed plot. Regardless of what Washington is or isn't plotting, Beijing is sabotaging a wealth of resources.
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