As dozens of protesting monks interrupted a group of foreign journalists being escorted through Lhasa last Thursday, one thing was made amply clear: Despite what China says, the situation in Tibet is not under control.
Once again, Beijing is devastating its own credibility a la "SARS 2003" by denying any legitimate causes for discontent and depicting Tibetan unrest as unprovoked "terrorist" attacks coordinated by the Dalai Lama.
But this time Beijing has an advantage: The political landscape has changed significantly. Its influence has grown in direct proportion to its economic clout, and the effects of this are clearer than ever.
Nineteen years ago, the EU responded to Beijing's violent crackdown on demonstrators at Tiananmen Square by imposing an arms embargo.
By contrast, over the weekend, EU foreign ministers meeting in Slovenia issued a statement on the situation in Tibet that could only be described as toothless and unconvincing. Leaders essentially contented themselves with hoping for better days in Tibet, without recognizing the underlying problems that have fueled discord there or condemning Beijing's crackdown on all manifestations of dissent, including peaceful protests.
Compared with many government responses to the situation in Myanmar only six months earlier, the West is saying disappointingly little about why Tibetan monks would be willing to risk their personal freedoms by marching on the street, an action that can mean years in China's extrajudicial laogai - or re-education through labor - camps.
Few top politicians seem willing to raise Beijing's hackles over Tibet - US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and German Chancellor Angela Merkel being notable exceptions. The reasons for this are well-known to Taiwanese, as the nation has watched its pool of allies gradually evaporate under the heat of China's fierce economic growth.
Taiwanese, Tibetans and all others who suffer from Beijing's authoritarianism face the same dilemma: An international community that is increasingly inclined to turn a deaf ear to their calls for help and a blind eye to blatant oppression.
Yet while China's undeniable political and economic sway risks silencing critics abroad, it is not the only lesson to be learned from the past weeks.
China has once again shown its ultra-sensitivity to Western criticism of its record - even weak criticism - and that is a sentiment that opens doors. It is something for Taiwanese and Tibetans alike to seize upon and a tool that human-rights activists have harnessed in the past with promising results. Beijing's desire to escape further chastising over its rights abuses led to its welcoming a UN special rapporteur on torture for the first time in 2005; it led to the release of high-profile Uighur rights activist Rebiya Kadeer the same year; and led authorities to escort foreign diplomats on a tour of Lhasa last week.
But if the international community does not push beyond these first crucial steps, those efforts will remain purely symbolic, leading to little in the way of concrete change. Furthermore, there is a risk that China will become increasingly adept at manipulating these gestures to erect a facade of sincerity.
Never before had democratic countries been so reliant on a single authoritarian regime than they are on China in today's globalized economy. If the result is that governments inscreasingly refrain from criticizing oppressive regimes, their talk of promoting universal human rights will become mere guff.
But as China has shown very little initiative of its own for democratic reform, the West may come to regret having offered its silence on human-rights issues at such a cheap price.
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
RSS