China’s capital, Beijing, looks like any big city, full of tall office buildings, large shopping malls, squat government offices, political monuments, luxury retailers and horrid traffic jams.
The casual summer uniform is the same: shorts, athletic shoes, skirts, T-shirts, sandals and blouses. Even an occasional baseball cap.
China is a nation which the Communist revolutionaries who ruled only four decades ago would not recognize. As I sat in a German restaurant featuring steins full of beer and platters covered with sausages, listening to a Chinese band cover US pop songs, I had to remind myself that I was only a short drive from Tiananmen Square and former Chinese leader Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) mausoleum.
True believers still exist. One yesterday spoke to me reverently of Mao’s rise to power and service to Chinese. However, she is the exception, at least among China’s younger professionals.
Indeed, younger educated Chinese could not be further from Communist cadres once determined to create a revolution. The former are socially active, desire the newest technologies, and worry about going to good schools and getting good jobs. Cynicism about corrupt and unelected leaders is pervasive.
If there is one common belief, it is hostility toward government Internet controls. Students have complained to me in class about their inability to get to many Web sites and readily shared virtual private networks to circumvent state barriers.
However, such opinions are not held only by the young. A high-school student told me that his father urged him to study in the US because of Beijing’s restrictions on freedom.
While Chinese from all walks of life are comfortable telling foreigners what they think about their lives, leaders and nation, sharing those beliefs with other Chinese is problematic. The media, of course, is closely controlled. Internet sites are blocked, deleted and revamped. Unofficial intimidation, legal restrictions and even prison time await those who take to social media and blogs to criticize the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
However, increasingly globalized Chinese are aware of their online disadvantage compared with their peers in the West. Google, YouTube and Twitter are verboten. Today Bloomberg and the New York Times are beyond reach.
Even news sources considered generally acceptable face censorship for specific reporting which hits too close to home. A couple of days ago, as BBC television began to detail official abuses, my TV went black. A couple of minutes later BBC was back, after the China report had finished.
While Internet and media restrictions have not prevented rapid economic growth, barring the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) best and brightest to a world of information is likely to dampen innovation and entrepreneurship. Moreover, those denied their full freedoms are more likely to leave home. Since 2000, about 91,000 wealthy individuals have resettled elsewhere, at least some to escape an authoritarian system unbounded by the rule of law.
Repression also stultifies China’s political evolution to a more mature and stable political order. Democracy provides an important safety valve for popular dissent. Frustrated Chinese have little opportunity to legally demand peaceful change.
The CCP’s control might not be as firm as often presumed. The oppressive establishment which most Chinese have faced for most of their lives is Communist.
Indeed, for many if not most party members, Communism is a means of personal advancement, even enrichment. With corruption seen as pervasive, public cynicism about political morals is equally ubiquitous. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) anti-corruption campaign, including targeting top “tigers,” is popular, but is widely seen as politically motivated.
Moreover, Xi has abrogated the well-understood “deal” of the past four decades, that rulers can retire and be immune from future prosecution. Will incumbents so readily yield power in the future?
Perhaps even more threatening for the CCP is the potential for an economic slowdown and consequent political unrest. Already demonstrations and protests are common against local governments, which tend to be the most ostentatiously rapacious. What if that antagonism shifts against the center?
An unstable China is in no one’s interest. Certainly not for Chinese, rulers or ruled, and not for the rest of the world.
A poorer PRC means a poorer world: China is a major supplier and increasingly important source of global demand. Moreover, a politically unstable Beijing would have unpredictable effects on its neighbors.
Since Mao’s death in 1976, the PRC has changed dramatically — and dramatically for the better. However, this second revolution has stalled. Economic liberalization remains incomplete. Political reform never started and individual liberty has regressed.
Chinese deserve to be free. China would benefit from its people’s freedom and the rest of the world would gain from a freer nation. Everyone desiring a peaceful and prosperous 21st century should hope for the successful conclusion of China’s second revolution.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and former special assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan.
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS