Even though China’s rulers continue to, even more vociferously, justify the Tiananmen Square Massacre on June 3 and 4, 1989, that in itself says that, at some level, they themselves might not be so sure about it.
However, they soldier on with the untruth, believing that China’s stability and growth since then is justification enough for the slaughter of hundreds, if not thousands, of students whose only “sin” was that they wanted openness and transparency, called democracy, to govern their country.
That was not happening under the prevalent political system, loosely called communism, or socialism with Chinese characteristics.
At the recent Shangri-La security summit in Singapore, attended by Chinese Minister of Defense General Wei Fenghe (魏鳳和) and then-US acting secretary of defense Patrick Shanahan, China was adamant that the massive use of force to destroy the peaceful democracy movement was the “correct” decision.
The military crackdown “was decisive in stopping the turbulence,” Wei said.
The Tiananmen protests were “political turmoil that the central government needed to quell, which was the correct policy. Due to this China has enjoyed stability,” he said.
However, there is a problem: If the massacre was such a success story, why is it that it is not shared by the Chinese regime with its own people? The “positive” narrative shared by Wei and others in the regime with the external world might as well be told to Chinese, who might be understanding about what a sterling job the Chinese Communist Party did in terms of ensuring stability that led to economic growth and made China a powerful country.
However, that is a risk the regime is not prepared to take, hence the blanket ban on any mention or discussion of the tragedy, as if the Chinese people have amnesia when it comes to the massacre or, for that matter, any of the purges or tragedies to affect the nation, such as the Hundred Flowers Campaign, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) dismisses any criticism of the party’s past as “historical nihilism.”
One justification for the Tiananmen tragedy often trotted out is the negative example of the Soviet Union’s Glasnost democracy experiment under then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, which is said to have led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
There are a few assumptions that are easily made to justify the so-called Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) killing of its own people, believed to be on orders from Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), who wielded immense power as a supreme leader of sorts.
However, these are simply assumptions that are stated as facts. How could it be proved that the Chinese and the Soviet situations were analogues? Their historical, economic and political trajectories were quite different.
The second assumption is that if the democracy movement had got its way of opening up China’s political system, it would have inevitably led to chaos and anarchy instead of the economic “prosperity” that dawned after the massacre wrought by unleashing the PLA on its on people. The PLA was supposed to protect its own people, not kill them.
It is equally valid to question if the price of the so-called prosperity was worth it in terms of so many lives lost in the midst of a peaceful protest movement? Besides, why is it taken for granted that a democratic alternative, voiced by peaceful protests, would inevitably led to chaos and anarchy?
Is the continuation of a political system based on submission, rather popular participation, a durable solution?
In China, these questions are not allowed. Indeed, as the Tiananmen massacre is never supposed to have happened, nobody would need to ask questions about a “hypothetical” tragedy.
At another level, under Xi’s regime, China is spruiking its political system as a superior alternative to Western democracy, pointing out, at different times, its record on colonialism, slavery, ongoing racism and the on-off crisis of capitalism, the latest being the global financial crisis of 2007 and 2008 still working itself out.
It is true that Western democracy, as it has evolved, is far from perfect and lately is tending to descend into populism and authoritarianism. This means there is need for more vigilance by strengthening constitutional provisions to guard against a descent into authoritarianism or even fascism.
China is hardly the desirable political alternative where Xi is now the country’s president for life.
Sushil Seth is a commentator based in Australia.
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