US-based Chinese political commentator Zhang Tianliang (章天亮) once said: “When the Chinese Communist Party [CCP] faces two choices — one with good results and the other with bad, it will choose the bad one.”
At first, I was as puzzled as anyone as to why it would be so, but after six months of protests were ignited in Hong Kong by a now-scrapped extradition bill, it finally makes sense.
When Britain handed Hong Kong’s sovereignty back to China in 1997, the CCP came up with the concept of “one country, two systems” and the idea that the people of Hong Kong should rule Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy as a way to bring Hong Kongers back into the fold.
However, the CCP’s true intention was to use the “one country, two systems” model to deceive Taiwan and realize the so-called “great project of peaceful unification of the motherland.”
Ever since the anti-extradition protests began, China has experienced an unprecedented crisis of governance.
Facing the protesters’ five demands — full withdrawal of the extradition bill; an independent inquiry into police behavior; amnesty for arrested protesters; a retraction of the classification of protesters as “rioters”; and universal suffrage in elections for the legislative council and chief executive — the Chinese government only had two options.
One was to respond positively to, and fulfill, all demands, creating a “one country, two systems” model in which Hong Kongers truly rule the territory by themselves with a high degree of autonomy.
The other option was to sternly reject the demands, rule out any kind of compromise and violently suppress Hong Kongers.
The results of each option are obvious. Fulfilling the demands would maintain peace and harmony in the territory, so that the “Pearl of the Orient” could keep its dazzling shine. More importantly, it would serve as a good example of the “one country, two systems” framework for Taiwan and lay the foundation for peaceful unification between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.
The other option would lead to results completely contrary to the first — Hong Kong’s economy would go from bad to worse, freedom and the rule of law would collapse, while Hong Kongers continued to fight suppression ever more strongly in a never-ending series of protests and demonstrations.
Faced with one good and one bad alternative, the CCP of course picked the bad one, and for a simple reason: It is the CCP’s nature.
Of course the CCP knows that its bloody suppression of protesters would drive Taiwanese away. However, the CCP also knows that meeting Hong Kongers’ five demands would pose a threat to its own totalitarian rule, as Chinese would learn from Hong Kong, which would make it difficult for the party to “keep China red.”
Not only does the CCP know that its legitimacy is the subject of much controversy and faces many challenges, it understands that its totalitarian rule is in danger. The only way it knows how to react is to intensify its plunder of Hong Kong — the goose that lays the golden eggs — because of its bandit instincts and its feeling that doomsday is near.
To satisfy its immediate interests, China will not hesitate to kill the goose and take the golden eggs.
Knowing the CCP’s instincts and nature, Taiwanese and Hong Kongers should continue to work together to sweep the CCP into the dustbin of history and bring peace to the world.
Kot Chun is a writer from Hong Kong.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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