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.
As a recipient of Taiwan’s Medigen COVID-19 vaccine, I am unable to return to my homeland, Canada. More precisely, Canada would allow me to return as a technically unvaccinated citizen, subject to quarantine and the expense that entails, but I am forbidden from exiting Canada through an airport, even when I have met the vaccination requirements of my destination country. That means any visit to Canada must become a permanent one. Stepping on Canadian soil carries the consequence of renouncing my life in Taiwan — my job, my home and my friends. The idea of not being allowed to leave your country for
Far from signaling the end, a grim new consensus between Taipei and Washington must now spur a new beginning that ensures Taiwan’s survival. Military leaders in Taipei and Washington now agree there is a growing chance that by the middle of this decade the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership may decide to use its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to attack, or even invade, Taiwan. On October 6, 2021, Taiwan Minister for National Defense Chiu Kuo-cheng (邱國正) told members of Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan, “By 2025, China will bring the cost and attrition to its lowest. It has the capacity now, but it will
Ever since former Kaohsiung mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was recalled last year, “Han fans,” as well as the KMT hierarchy, have made pro-Taiwan lawmakers their enemy No. 1, and Taiwan Statebuilding Party Legislator Chen Po-wei (陳柏惟) has been on top of that list (“Recall part of ‘generational war’: expert,” Oct. 19, page 3). Chen has always been one of Han’s harshest critics, and Han fans have vowed revenge. Former legislators Yen Kuan-hen (顏寬恆) and Yen Ching-piao (顏清標), being such sore losers, were not amused about losing to Chen democratically and have amassed significant resources backed by
The relationship between the US and China promises to do much to define this era, and what could determine this relationship might well be whether the two countries are able to continue to avoid armed conflict over Taiwan. However, with signs that the chances of conflict are growing, the question facing the US and its partners is how to avoid that outcome without sacrificing essential interests. Conceptual framing is always critical to foreign policy. This is no exception. There are problems and there are situations. Problems can in principle be solved. Situations can at best be managed. Taiwan is a situation. Attempts