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.
What began on Feb. 28 as a military campaign against Iran quickly became the largest energy-supply disruption in modern times. Unlike the oil crises of the 1970s, which stemmed from producer-led embargoes, US President Donald Trump is the first leader in modern history to trigger a cascading global energy crisis through direct military action. In the process, Trump has also laid bare Taiwan’s strategic and economic fragilities, offering Beijing a real-time tutorial in how to exploit them. Repairing the damage to Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could take years, suggesting that elevated energy prices are likely to persist. But the most
Taiwan should reject two flawed answers to the Eswatini controversy: that diplomatic allies no longer matter, or that they must be preserved at any cost. The sustainable answer is to maintain formal diplomatic relations while redesigning development relationships around transparency, local ownership and democratic accountability. President William Lai’s (賴清德) canceled trip to Eswatini has elicited two predictable reactions in Taiwan. One camp has argued that the episode proves Taiwan must double down on support for every remaining diplomatic ally, because Beijing is tightening the screws, and formal recognition is too scarce to risk. The other says the opposite: If maintaining
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), during an interview for the podcast Lanshuan Time (蘭萱時間) released on Monday, said that a US professor had said that she deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize following her meeting earlier this month with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Cheng’s “journey of peace” has garnered attention from overseas and from within Taiwan. The latest My Formosa poll, conducted last week after the Cheng-Xi meeting, shows that Cheng’s approval rating is 31.5 percent, up 7.6 percentage points compared with the month before. The same poll showed that 44.5 percent of respondents
India’s semiconductor strategy is undergoing a quiet, but significant, recalibration. With the rollout of India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0, New Delhi is signaling a shift away from ambition-driven leaps toward a more grounded, capability-led approach rooted in industrial realities and institutional learning. Rather than attempting to enter the most advanced nodes immediately, India has chosen to prioritize mature technologies in the 28-nanometer to 65-nanometer range. That would not be a retreat, but a strategic alignment with domestic capabilities, market demand and global supply chain gaps. The shift carries the imprimatur of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, indicating that the recalibration is