The news on Saturday that Hong Kongers may be allowed to directly elect their chief executive by 2017 and lawmakers by 2020 has been greeted as a sign that Beijing would live up to the commitment it has made to allow the territory universal suffrage.
But while some celebrated, others cried foul -- and justifiably so.
The key word is "may," which means that the decision -- if we can call it that -- is anything but a promise. Rather, it leaves the door wide open for Beijing to renege on that statement, which it could do by citing threats to Hong Kong's social stability or to its economic health and any number of reasons in between.
The last thing Beijing wants is to open the Pandora's box of democracy, as yielding in Hong Kong would surely lead to demands from other provinces that, left unchecked, could spread across the country. Beijing is terrified of democracy because it knows that it is the one tool, short of civil war, that can threaten its hold on power.
The remark on Saturday, with Chief Executive Donald Tsang (
It would be pure foolishness to take Beijing's declaration at face value, which, sadly, is what many in the international community will likely do. This is yet another sign, we can hear them saying, that Beijing is becoming more "normal" and playing by rules befitting a state that is integrating itself in the global scheme of things.
One need only scratch the surface of Beijing's promises, however, to find that they cannot be relied on. The accelerating pace of arrests of Chinese dissidents in the run-up to the Olympics -- now only eight months away -- should be enough to remind the gullible that Beijing uses promises more for short-term troubleshooting than for framing binding commitments.
The vow China made to ensure media freedoms in its bid for the Beijing Olympics, for example, was utilitarian and insincere. Beijing won the Games it desperately wanted and, once this was achieved, things returned to normal -- including no one bothering to conceal the broken promises.
All of which is enough to make Hong Kongers skeptical. If Beijing so easily breaks its promises to the international community, what prevents it from doing so within its borders?
But China has time on its side. And as 2017 approaches, the rules of the game will change. Arguments for delays and further delays will pile up, as will demands for patience. The mere five-year delay will suddenly find itself lengthening, time will be bought and those who criticize Beijing will be portrayed once more as impatient and irresponsible troublemakers.
Democracy will remain just too dangerous a gift for the Chinese government to bestow upon its people.
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath