Tuesday last week marked the 24th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. Hong Kong residents played an active role in supporting the democracy movement that swept through China in 1989, and they came to the assistance of protesters both before and after the crackdown.
Hong Kong residents today still strongly support calls for China’s official verdict of the 1989 events to be overturned. The massacre took place a few years before the UK returned sovereignty of Hong Kong to China, and the shadow of those combined events is a nightmare that has never ceased to haunt many in Hong Kong.
In survey results published by the University of Hong Kong’s Public Opinion Program on Thursday last week, 63 percent of respondents in Hong Kong said that they were in favor of vindicating the 1989 pro-democracy movement — the highest figure recorded in such surveys since 1997.
Hong Kong residents’ longstanding concern with the Tiananmen events is connected with their anxiety over Beijing’s tightened control of Hong Kong, its delay to making the chief executive and legislative councilors subject to popular election and the introduction of Chinese patriotism classes in the territory’s education system, which they view as “brainwashing.”
Hong Kong residents and Chinese democracy activists are passionate about seeing the 1989 pro-democracy movement vindicated because to them the massacre, which marked the end of the democracy movement, signified a bloodbath imposed on China’s political reform by the nation’s ruling elite.
As long as the event evades transitional justice, the project of political reform in China cannot possibly get underway.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General-Secretary Xi Jinping (習近平) has taken over from predecessor Hu Jintao (胡錦濤). For a while, some commentators said that Xi would be a relatively bold reformer.
Xi’s meeting with Hu Deping (胡德平), son of former CCP chairman and general secretary Hu Yaobang (胡耀邦), whose death marked the beginning of the 1989 democracy movement, gave people some hope that China’s authorities might finally reassess the movement.
However, things have developed in the opposite direction, with reports about the so-called “seven banned topics of higher education” detracting from the international community’s first impressions of Xi.
The seven taboos refer to issues that teachers in China’s higher education institutions have reportedly been told not to talk about: universal values, press freedom, civil society, civil rights, the CCP’s mistakes, the rich and powerful capitalist class and judicial independence.
Some people say that the imposition of these “seven taboos” signals a move to revive former Chinese leader Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) far-left political line, and it runs completely counter to the dream of constitutional government that ordinary Chinese people long for.
To put it simply, Xi still favors a one-party dictatorship, so the dream of vindicating the 1989 pro-democracy movement will probably have to wait. Further, since the Chinese themselves are not allowed to dream about constitutional government, those in Taiwan who want to adhere to “the Republic of China Constitution” or “constitutional one China,” are patently not just dreaming, but deluded.
Some well-established figures in the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) have proposed a resolution on human rights on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, which calls for opening a dialog with China, taking the people as its theme and human rights as its basis.
Judging by the standards of the “seven taboos,” there seems little point in trying to launch such a dialog. If the DPP wants to talk about the very topics that Xi has forbidden anyone mentioning, what chance is there that the Chinese side would sit down and discuss them with the DPP?
The only interest that China’s dictatorship has in the DPP is what Yu Zhengsheng (俞正聲), chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference’s National Committee, recently reiterated: Contacts between the DPP and the CCP can only take place if the DPP abandons the goal of independence.
Without this, any “noncommittal” terms the DPP may adopt to please China will serve no purpose at all.
The Beijing dictatorship is currently acting out a “rising China” drama in the East and South China Seas. It has long fancied China as a “big brother” country with plenty of money that need not pay heed to anyone
On Thursday last week, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Hong Lei (洪磊) said that “the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed in San Francisco was illegal and invalid and could under no circumstances be recognized by the Chinese government since China had been excluded from its preparation, formulation and signing.”
The 1951 Treaty of San Francisco is an international treaty that was signed by a large number of countries, including Britain, France, the US and Japan, so how can China unilaterally declare it to be illegal and invalid and refuse to recognize it? Is China in charge of the whole universe these days?
China is a domineering country that has long been ruled by a domineering political clique. Setting aside all the Chinese who are suffering under the seven topics, Hong Kong residents are probably the ones with the most direct experience of this kind of “red terror.”
Sadly, though President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was born in Hong Kong, his feelings about China’s actions are quite different from those of most Hong Kongers. Ma has praised Xi for having a good understanding of Taiwan and being pragmatic.
To prove his point, Ma said of Xi, “He said that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait should exchange representative offices, and they are actively promoting this. We want to expand exchanges between the two sides. We can welcome more students and more mainland tourists, and they can talk with us about that.”
You would think that Xi was Santa Claus showering presents on Taiwan.
Ma deserves his reputation as a “bumbler.” If Xi wants to gobble up Taiwan, Ma will be delighted to offer his head to Xi for chopping, and Xi would be a bumbler too if he didn’t swing the axe.
What a genius Ma is. To think that he once declared, “If Beijing doesn’t redress June 4, we cannot talk about reunification.” Yet four years ago, on the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, he praised China for having reformed and brought about big improvements in people’s lives, saying that the Chinese authorities had paid more attention to human rights issues over the previous 10 years than it did before.
The implication is that the massacre was justifiable and the loss of life was necessary.
Xi became president in March and his government has already announced the “seven taboos.”
Does Ma want to make the 1989 democracy movement and the massacre a taboo subject? Or is he going to start claiming that the massacre set the scene for progress? We will just have to wait and see.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath