At least four times in the past few decades, a US president has been presented with opportunities and risks from a popular uprising against an oppressive foreign adversary that threatened US interests. Now, US President Donald Trump — who is still addressing the consequences of the earlier unconsummated events — faces a new situation as the people of Hong Kong defy Beijing’s further erosion of their guaranteed rights of limited self-government.
This month was the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. In 1989, thousands were killed or wounded when millions of Chinese demonstrated peacefully in Beijing and other Chinese cities for political reform of the Chinese Communist Party, but were met by the guns and tanks of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.
Then-US president George H.W. Bush kept an unseemly low profile during the horrific events that shocked the world, but sent his national security adviser to assure then-Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) that US-China relations would not change.
Former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, an informal Bush adviser and paramount US-China hand, said Deng had acted to keep order in the nation’s most important public space as any leader would.
In 2009, Iran’s population rose up against the tyrannical Islamist regime that, for 30 years, had been crushing their aspirations for freedom and modernity while also spreading terrorism in the region and threatening the US and its citizens.
Despite desperate pleas for help from Iranians, then-US president Barack Obama refused to provide either material or moral support and the revolt was crushed.
Meanwhile, the ayatollahs proceeded with their anti-Western campaign of terrorism, provocation and nuclear weapons development.
In 2014, the people of Hong Kong demonstrated peacefully against Beijing’s violation of its commitments to autonomous local elections under the “one country, two systems” arrangement promised Hong Kong by Deng in the early 1980s.
The Obama administration again decided that interfering in another country’s domestic affairs — even with words of encouragement for people who shared the US’ values — would further endanger already tense relations with a despotic regime that did not wish the US well.
Hong Kong’s “Umbrella movement” petered out and the People’s Republic of China again stifled Chinese’s wishes.
In Venezuela, the Russian and Cuban-supported dictatorship of former Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, followed upon his death by his protege Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, so corrupted and destroyed the economy that the population is on the verge of starvation.
As a candidate, and then as president-elect, Trump warned that he would take action against the anti-US despot.
After Maduro’s challengers refused to recognize the results of last year’s election, claiming irregularities, the Trump administration led the international community in declaring his rule illegal and recognized Venezuelan National Assembly President Juan Guaido as the legitimate interim president pending a new election.
The US worked with Guaido and the political opposition to arrange a peaceful transfer of power, but US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Russia’s intervention foiled the plan.
The Iran and Venezuela crises remain unresolved, and now the Trump administration must decide whether to throw at least its moral support behind the million Hong Kongers who rallied against Beijing’s plan to change the autonomous region’s extradition laws so that China can get its hands on Chinese living abroad who express views at variance with the Chinese Communist Party line.
With all the pressing foreign policy challenges already on its plate, it would be easy for the Trump administration to look the other way on Hong Kong’s plight, especially given the fraught relations with China on trade, Taiwan, the South China Sea and more.
However, aside from the moral and legal reasons for supporting the Hong Kong people’s cause, there are strategic considerations as well.
The fates of Hong Kong and Taiwan have been inextricably linked ever since Deng promulgated his “one country, two systems” formula for both.
Taiwanese long ago decided they are not interested in surrendering their democratic system for a communist dictatorship. The horrific events at Tiananmen in 1989 and all that has happened under Beijing’s rule since, especially under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), have deepened Taiwan’s resolve to remain free and democratic. That is clearly in sync with US values and interests.
Taking a strong stand in support of Hong Kong’s people, even without a formal legal obligation, would greatly reaffirm Washington’s commitment to Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act and other congressional declarations of deep US ties with Taiwan.
And it is surely the right thing to do for Hong Kong.
Joseph Bosco served as China country director in the office of the US secretary of defense. He is a fellow at the Institute for Taiwan-American Studies and a member of the advisory committee of the Global Taiwan Institute.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US