The Occupy Central protest in Hong Kong has been going on for more than seven weeks. A Hong Kong court has ordered the removal of some of the barricades used by the protesters, a move that was followed by a failed attempt by some activists to occupy Hong Kong’s Legislative Council building.
A survey from the University of Hong Kong shows that support for the protests among territory residents has cooled and that two-thirds of respondents said the occupation of streets should be ended. This raises the prospect that the protests will end in failure.
If they do, the goal of universal suffrage will not have been attained, but the action still will have won a preliminary victory, with the Hong Kong Government and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime in Beijing the big losers. Occupy Central mobilized a broad spectrum of society and broke through Hong Kongers’ purported lack of interest in politics. In addition, the scale and duration of the protests and their diversity exceed those of the Sunflower movement protests in Taipei in March and April.
Protesters’ peaceful and nonviolent reactions to the Hong Kong police force’s failed attempts to disperse them with rubber bullets, pepper spray and tear gas won acknowledgment and support from around the world. British arms dealers are set to end sales of tear gas to Hong Kong’s government, while the UN Human Rights Council has called on China to introduce universal suffrage in the territory. It is not only the international community in general that has followed events in Hong Kong; many national leaders, including US President Barack Obama, have also voiced their support.
Occupy Central has also affected Taiwan. In the past, China has wielded its so-called “one country, two systems” policy to rule Hong Kong and in a bid to court Taiwan, but the protest has exposed the lie behind former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s (鄧小平) pledge that life in Hong Kong would go on unchanged for 50 years. It is now even more difficult for Taiwanese to believe any Chinese sweet talk and it has become more difficult for China to annex the nation.
The strategy of the CCP and the Hong Kong government seems to be: “Procrastinate, to break protesters’ morale.” If Occupy Central makes no progress, participants could become anxious or abandon their peaceful approach and turn to violence and revenge. It is also possible that they will be discouraged, making mobilization more difficult next time protests arise. Mobilizing a mass movement around a vision makes sense to the public, but the greatest force is the hope of success. When there is no hope of success, people easily lose the motivation required to continue protesting.
True universal suffrage is in the interest of all Hong Kongers. If the territory could choose its own leaders — and those leaders do not blindly do everything ordered by Zhongnanhai — the local government could deal with needs of the public directly and improve their happiness. This is the significance of Occupy Central. Perhaps one protest is not enough to realize this vision, but the seeds of the next protest need to be planted to pass on the vision and gain the participation of middle-of-the-road supporters and to convert opponents.
The Occupy Central protests have reached a crossroads: The movement might now either become radicalized and raise the conflict level, or choose to end street actions and prepare its next move. This is not defeat; it is a pause to recuperate, regroup and make preparations for the next protest.
Participants must not be discouraged and imagine that they have been defeated; until universal suffrage has been achieved, everyone has to continue to work hard toward that goal.
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