Twenty-two years ago today, several hundred students and civilians were killed by the People’s Liberation Army to suppress the pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square and elsewhere in China. They were shot and mowed down by tanks as Beijing’s leadership moved to end the seven-week “social chaos” that was challenging their autocratic rule.
Twenty-two years later, much has changed in China — but one thing remains the same: The callous and ruthless determination of the Chinese leadership to maintain its grip on power, to the detriment of the people in whose name they rule.
Beijing’s latest crackdown began after the “Jasmine Revolution” deposed the autocratic leaders of Tunisia and Egypt and sparked revolts in Yemen, Syria, Bahrain and Libya. Chinese human-rights lawyers, Internet bloggers and others began disappearing. The crackdown has also had an impact in Tibetan areas of Sichuan Province after protests at the Kirti Monastery and in Inner Mongolia after the death of a herder.
It is rather ridiculous, actually, to speak of “the latest crackdown,” since it is almost impossible to tell when one crackdown ends and the next one begins: akin to the endless “anti-corruption” campaigns aimed at Chinese Communist Party members. Instead, it is an almost endless cycle of political repression, interspersed with the occasional pledge to address a few grievances — pledges kept on the most superficial levels — with a little money thrown in.
Zhongnanhai’s residents seem to think that money can buy them anything — a little like the Catholic Church’s old practice of selling indulgences and ignoring the fact that such indulgences were supposed to be granted only after the sinner confessed and sought absolution and punishment for their sins. What else can one think after hearing that Chinese security officials had approached the family of a Tiananmen Square Massacre victim earlier this year about paying compensation for the death, but without offering to provide an explanation for the death or any kind of apology?
In an open letter published this week, the Tiananmen Mothers group said its members would not be bought off, nor would they settle for anything less than a public acknowledgment of the killings, adding that “the souls of those killed during June Fourth shall not be defiled.”
How galling it must be for those in Zhongnanhai that while they have been able to expunge or block any mention of the massacre from the media in China, the iconic images of the Goddess of Democracy and a lone man standing against a tank continue to inspire democracy activists the world over. Replicas of the statue can now be found in several cities, while the moment that an Egyptian man faced off against an armored water cannon vehicle in Cairo on Jan. 25 was quickly seized by the protesters there as Egypt’s “Tiananmen moment.”
Throughout history, governments worldwide have done bad things. Many continue to do so today — such as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, which thought a 13-year-old boy was such a threat that he deserved to be shot, beaten, burned and mutilated. However, as Beijing’s leadership learned 22 years ago, and Assad’s government and others in that region are learning now, it is they who must now live in fear of their people, not the other way around. They may be able to crush, mutilate and incarcerate, but they will not be able to do so forever.
In honor of all those who were killed in the Tiananmen Massacre and those who have died in the “Arab Spring” — in honor of those such as the Tiananmen Mothers, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波) and so many others who refuse to go quietly into the night — in honor of the memory of those killed or imprisoned in Taiwan during the 228 Incident and the White Terror era — take a moment today to reflect upon the rights and privileges that living in a democracy conveys.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS