HK protest needs support
Before July 1, 1997, Hong Kong was known as the “Pearl of the East.” It was the economic hub for Chinese import and export trading at that time. For Hong Kongers who grew up under the British democratic system of freedom, it is hard to swallow the bitter pill of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) bureaucracy. In 1997, Hong Kong was promised the continuation of its democratic system for at least 50 years, but that promise has gone with the wind.
The CCP has never kept its promises. On May 23, 1951, China signed a 17-Point Peace Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, of which none of those points remain in place. China had promised the people of Hong Kong a free election, but now Beijing wants to prequalify all candidates. To the Chinese leaders elections are nothing but a day off to press a rubber stamp. They have never known how to respect a democratic system or the people’s choice.
About two weeks ago, the Scots cast their votes in the Scottish independence referendum, and despite the result, the practice of allowing a people to choose their fate should be celebrated. During the process, the British government did not blame the advocates of the independence movement and there was no police violence involving pepper spray, tear gas and batons.
Why do the authoritarian governments always treat people like animals? The dictators simply do not care for democracy and freedom.
On March 23, Taiwan experienced the same kind of police violence witnessed in Hong Kong. While the Sunflower movement students sat in front of the Executive Yuan they were beaten by police weilding batons and shields until injured and bleeding. The order to use violence against peaceful protests in both Taipei and Hong Kong came from similar cold-blooded dictators.
On Friday last week, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) spoke about “one country, two systems” to a pro-unification group visiting Beijing, and emphasized it as the best way of achieving peaceful reunification. Of course, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) whistled the same tune, referring to the unification model of East and West Germany.
Yes, Ma’s Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Xi’s CCP can unite. However, Taiwan has never been a legal territory of the Republic of China (ROC) or the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In 1912, the ROC said Taiwan was Japan’s territory, and in 1949 the PRC said Taiwan was still Japan’s legal territory by definition of international law. In 1951, Japan renounced their right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores Islands (Penghu). Neither the ROC nor the PRC was the recipient of the right, title and claim.
If Ma considers himself to be the president of Taiwan he has no right to promote its unification, because Taiwan is not a renegade providence of China. Ma should read Formosa Betrayed — the book thrown at him last week by student and pro-democracy activist Yen Ming-wei (顏銘緯).
The violent reaction in Hong Kong to the “Occupy Central with Love and Peace” protest is a wake-up call for Taiwan. The peace-loving Taiwanese should support Hong Kong’s pro-democracy claim to a free election. The nation must not lock itself into the China trap. Taiwan is not the ROC, the ROC is not Taiwan and Taiwan is not part of China. Open Formosa Betrayed, it will tell you the legal status of Taiwan.
John Hsieh
Hayward, California
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