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.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers