Whatever the outcome of Chen Guangcheng’s (陳光誠) ordeal in Beijing, it will not be a “win-win” situation, just losses all round. The entire episode is a harsh reminder that in China, the constitution and law are easily ignored and agreements are often not worth the paper they are written on.
Wednesday’s deal between the US embassy and the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs over Chen began unraveling within hours of being reached. It involved relocating Chen and his family to Tianjin, away from the clutches of the Linyi County and Shangdong Province officials who have illegally kept him under house arrest since his release from prison in 2010 (where he was sent on trumped-up charges after his lawyers were barred from the court proceedings). US officials said Chen’s treatment by local officials would be investigated.
By Wednesday evening, Beijing activist Zeng Jinyan (曾金燕) was being quoted as saying Chen only agreed to stay in China to protect his family including his wife, Yuan Weijing (袁偉靜), who was threatened with being beaten to death if he left the country. The threats were credible. Yuan has been beaten on several occasions, as has Chen’s 80-year-old mother, while the couple’s son has not been allowed to live with them for two years and their six-year-old daughter has thugs rifling through her bookbag when she goes to school, apparently in search of messages to and from the outside world.
Last Thursday, Chen said he was afraid Tianjin would not be far away enough from their Dongshigu Village persecutors to guarantee their safety and that he was afraid the authorities would think of an excuse to send him back to Shandong. After all, his elder brother, Chen Guangfu (陳光福), was detained after Chen’s escape and his nephew Chen Kegui (陳克貴) is on the run after defending himself from local officials who raided his house in the middle of the night. Other relatives have been rounded up as well.
The authorities in Dongshigu and Linyi have spent a lot of money trying to keep Chen caged and the village locked down — all because he embarrassed them by exposing that up to 7,000 women in the county had been forced to undergo late-term abortions or involuntary sterilizations to meet the quotas of China’s one-child policy, an expose that led to several officials being punished and won Chen the 2007 Magsaysay Award. Even though their actions have been illegal, their continued ability to act with impunity proves once again that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) operates above the law.
What are the options facing Chen, China and the US now? Will he be allowed to leave the country for temporary studies or will he be forced to stay? If he leaves — he has made it clear he is not seeking political asylum abroad — will he be allowed to return? If he leaves (or even if he stays), what happens to his relatives and friends? Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) has frequently defended China’s political reforms and admonished the West to keep out of China’s affairs, but the Chen imbroglio has made a mockery of Wen’s claims that China’s system protects its people and that their rights are enshrined in law. Once again, the People’s Republic of China has been revealed as a massive Potemkin village, with one facade for overseas investors and foreign visitors and a much darker, nastier reality for those living behind the walls.
For US President Barack Obama’s administration, the dilemma it faces is: Live up to its commitment to human rights and get Chen out, thereby angering the Chinese officialdom it needs in dealing with North Korea, Iran and Syria; or leave him there, giving the Republicans a weapon to bash Obama with ahead of the November elections. In a rush to reach a deal, US diplomats failed to win iron-clad guarantees.
No one is going to come out of this unscathed. The important facts to remember, especially for those in Taiwan, are that the law is not the law in China, that Beijing’s foreign ministry has little real power and that regardless of the truth, for the CCP, might makes right.
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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