It is absolutely ludicrous for China to politicize regular sociocultural exchanges between Taiwan and Hong Kong by condemning two directly elected legislators — Yau Wai-ching (游蕙禎) and Sixtus “Baggio” Leung Chun-hang (梁頌恆) — as Taiwanese government conspirators trying destabilize their native territory.
In post-Umbrella movement Hong Kong, anyone who advocates localism can easily gain a lot of voter support, and Yau and Leung are no exception. By making them scapegoats for a flawed constitutional governance system, Beijing and its cronies in Hong Kong are burying their heads in the sand and ignoring the radicalization of Hong Kong politics.
The hostile response by Beijing toward Taipei’s rightful concerns over the rapid deterioration of Hong Kong’s governance had to do with the inauguration fiasco at the Hong Kong Legislative Council in which Yau and Leung upheld their political convictions and refused to pledge allegiance to the Chinese communist regime.
The inauguration dispute reveals a broken relationship between Hong Kong’s ruling elites and civil society, and this fiasco is made worse by factional rivalries inside the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) last week used the Sixth Plenary Meeting of the 18th CPC Central Committee to prepare for his second five-year term as the absolute leader of China in the 19th National Communist Party Congress late next year. It is widely reported that Xi has set out to marginalize the political influence of his rival Zhang Dejiang (張德江), who has been in charge of Hong Kong and Macau affairs, and has been a key political supporter of Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying (梁振英).
By exaggerating the confluence of threats posed by pro-independence groups from Hong Kong and Taiwan, the rival Chinese communist factions seek to undermine each other and divert people’s attention from intense intraparty conflicts.
In Hong Kong, a steady political progress has been under way since the victory of several young activists at the Legislative Council election in September. Many Hong Kongers embraced fresh candidates who were baptized in the fire of civic activism during the months-long Umbrella movement in late 2014.
What distinguished these young candidates from older prodemocracy parties was the innovative way that they communicated with and organized voters. Using social media to debate policies, raise funds and recruit volunteers on an ad hoc basis, they transmitted their optimism and energy to the electorates; because of their participation, Hong Kong politics has changed immensely. Localism now replaces nationalism as the dominant political discourse and democratization takes the place of neoliberalism in the public sphere.
Directly elected legislators like Yau and Leung are eager to bring about progressive change even in the most difficult circumstances. By reaching out to their Taiwanese counterparts, they hope to learn a few strategies to advance their localist platform and negotiate with China.
Since all politics is local, the success of a democratic system is not only dependent on the competence of executive leaders and lawmakers to initiate changes from the top, but also connected with the renewal of civic engagement. Taiwan’s third peaceful power transition has prompted Hong Kongers to reassess the incomplete goals of the Umbrella movement (ie, expanding civic leadership, empowering communities in public decisionmaking and building an open society from the ground up).
The first inspiration for Hong Kongers to take from Taiwan is the can-do spirit of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) championed by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and her followers. Tsai attracted much support from many moderate Taiwanese, who were determined to take control of their destiny and opposed Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) rapprochement with China.
Another useful lesson concerns the active participation of civil society in Taiwanese politics. The latest changes in Taiwan’s public governance and foreign policy are possible mainly because the nation’s constitutional system and free media are designed to empower Taiwanese, allowing them to make a difference and hold their politicians accountable.
The third lesson is the art of democratic localism through which Taiwan’s political leaders are now learning to rebalance various power relationships and interest groups across all levels of the state and society in a transparent and dialogical manner.
In the long run, this democratizing approach might lead to what political scientist Lawrence Pratchett calls a transition from the autonomy of “freedom from” government authorities toward the acquisition of “freedom to” act responsibly at the grassroots levels.
This transition demands much courage and wisdom from Taiwanese leaders to share power, cultivate the practice of self-governance and trust people on the ground to be more capable of resolving their problems than politicians.
On the whole, Taiwan is a shining example of successful democratization in a Chinese polity. As an irresistible attraction for Hong Kongers who are searching for new ways to rejuvenate their struggle and take it to new heights, the history of the DPP provides a perfect template for mobilizing the masses against an autocratic system.
Part of this political experiment entails an innovative form of activist leadership, shifting from top-down micromanagement by a handful of charismatic leaders toward consultative leadership and coordination among local communities. This is probably the only way for Hong Kong to sustain its prodemocracy campaign and strengthen its limited bargaining power in dealing with Beijing.
Joseph Tse-hei Lee is a professor of history at Pace University in New York.
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