Xinjiang Chinese Communist Party Secretary Zhang Chunxian (張春賢) yesterday proclaimed that the government had been “broadly successful” in maintaining stability in the region, its “de-radicalization” efforts were working and the “atmosphere for religious extremism has weakened.”
On Thursday, Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) Minister Zhang Zhijun (張志軍) issued a New Year’s greeting to Taiwan that was little more than a thinly veiled threat and an attempt to boost the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) chances in the Jan. 16 presidential and legislative elections.
He said that he hoped Taiwanese realize the gains made under President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration could evaporate if Taiwan defies Beijing’s insistence that it remains a part of the Chinese nation. He also said that the public on both sides of the Taiwan Strait need to be on high alert to “oppose any pro-independence separatist attempts to split Taiwan from China and to sabotage peace and stability.”
While on the surface, the two Zhangs were commenting on very disparate issues, their remarks were a reminder that while the rest of the world was welcoming a new year, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is not only trying to keep China locked in the party’s fairy-tale nightmare, but also to convince the rest of the world of the truth of its lies.
Beijing has been hard at work for the past decade trying to perpetuate the myth that the civil and religious tensions and violence in Xinjiang have been the result of terrorist acts by Uighur groups akin to al-Qaeda or, more recently, the Islamic State group — much the way it has been accusing the Dalai Lama of encouraging violence in Tibet and inciting “hatred, terror and extremist action” by presiding over Kalachakra initiation ceremonies.
It refuses to admit that the party’s heavy-handed efforts to restrict or outlaw traditional religious and cultural practices by the predominantly Muslim Uighurs and Buddhist Tibetans, its promotion of Han-centric policies and the economic marginalization of Uighurs and Tibetans in their historic lands have anything to do with the unrest in Xinjiang, Tibet and predominantly Tibetan parts of what is now Sichuan Province.
What makes this a matter of concern for Taiwanese, if pure outrage over the abuse of human rights in those two regions was not enough, was that China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee on Sunday approved a new anti-terrorism law that takes effect this month, one that makes it easier for Beijing to label a violent attack as terrorism as well as “thought [or] speech” that aims to “subvert state power” or “split the state.”
While many analysts have focused on Xinjiang when discussing the new law, the CCP clearly had the Dalai Lama in mind when drafting the legislation, since one of its favorite adjectives for him is “splittist.”
Taiwanese need to be concerned because of the frequency with which Zhang Zhijun and others mutter darkly about those who would “split Taiwan from China,” ie, members of the Democratic Progressive Party and other non-KMT followers. They should also remember another Chinese law, the “Anti-Secession” Law passed just over a decade ago, which authorizes Beijing to use force to stop any move by Taiwan toward independence.
Passage of that law drew hundreds of thousands of people to the streets of Taipei on March 26, 2005, to protest against China’s threat.
Taiwanese voters have a chance to make even a stronger protest against Beijing and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) efforts to intimidate them and foment jingoistic patriotism among the Chinese — at the ballot boxes on Jan. 16. It is an opportunity they should not ignore. They should be under no illusion that the repression and state-sanctioned abuse that have been happening in Xinjiang and Tibet could not happen here.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS