Last week, everyone saw the footage of Hong Kong police using force to suppress anti-extradition law protesters. The decision to disperse demonstrators in this manner was an ominous sign for the future of the territory.
For Taiwanese observing how Beijing dealt with the demonstrations, it is a vivid example of what “one country, two systems” means. In Taiwan there is much sympathy for Hong Kongers, but Taiwanese also urgently need to reflect on their own situation.
Taiwan is a sovereign nation, while Hong Kong is a special region of China: Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. Nevertheless, the motivation behind the comparison is that Beijing has been trying to foist a “one country, two systems” model on Taiwan since 1982, when the phrase was first uttered by then-Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平).
For the 37 years since, this phrase has been treated in Taiwan as a joke that was not even worth discussing.
However, after Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Jan. 2 announced that his regime is exploring a “two systems” model for Taiwan, the phrase took on a new, sinister meaning. Taiwanese are not laughing about it anymore.
Why is this? Perhaps it is because they sense the inherent weakness of their position and the comparative strength of the enemy.
The answer can be found by exploring the chain of events that lead to the death of Hong Kong’s freedoms. The unenviable situation Hong Kong finds itself today has its roots in the territory’s mini-constitution — the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region — which was ratified by the Chinese National People’s Congress and signed by then-Chinese president Yang Shangkun (楊尚昆) in 1990.
The most frightening aspect of the Basic Law — indeed more fundamental than any of the clauses contained within it — is that when the document was drafted by Chinese Communist Party and Hong Kong government officials, the decision was made to exclude the national defense of Hong Kong from the territory’s autonomous powers.
In 1997, the Hong Kong-British government agreed that China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) could dispatch a garrison of troops into Hong Kong on April 21 that year, several months prior to the handover. One could say that this day, rather than July 1, 1997, when authority was formally transferred from the UK to China, was the moment that the territory surrendered to China.
Hong Kong has already surrendered, and the “one country, two systems” framework has been in place for 22 years. Regardless of how brave Hong Kongers are or how much they protest, it will be difficult for them to prevent the rights they enjoy under self-rule from being abolished one after the other.
Article 5 of the Basic Law states: “The socialist system and policies shall not be practiced in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years.”
Article 2 states: “The National People’s Congress authorizes the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to exercise a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication.”
Article 6 guarantees the right to privately own property.
The wording of these provisions appears worthless in the face of Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam’s (林鄭月娥) now-suspended extradition bill. The truth is that whoever controls the military has power — and this is the crux of the problem.
If Hong Kong does not possess its own independent military, then what use is voting for Legislative Council members? Democracy, liberty and the rule of law — all of these rights could vanish in an instant.
Talk is cheap. The finest orator in the world is useless if you are unable to defend your borders.
Taiwan’s military is the foundation upon which it has been able to establish its democracy. Taiwanese must ask themselves, how much they have each invested in their nation’s armed forces. Is guarding the home front the responsibility of individuals or the responsibility of “others,” or can responsibility be outsourced by upgrading military equipment?
To answer this, a well-worn topic must be reconsidered: Does Taiwan possess the right conditions to implement a professional, voluntary military? The answer from experts, as well as the US government, is consistent and clear “no.”
Next year is election year, and several high-profile individuals have already announced their intention to participate in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) presidential primary. All of them have been beating their chests and have loudly proclaimed their opposition to “one country, two systems.”
The question is, how to oppose it in practice? By engaging in a war of words? Or perhaps if everyone shouts “I love Taiwan” loud enough, the PLA will have the living daylights scared out of it?
The plight of Hong Kong should remind everyone of a vital question that all presidential hopefuls need to be asked: Who has sufficient knowledge, experience and willpower to restore a workable military conscription system?
It is a policy that presidents from both sides of the political spectrum have been evading for years. Taiwanese will have to wait and see whether any of the candidates show their mettle.
Tzou Jiing-wen is the editor-in-chief of the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper).
Translated by Edward Jones
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs