John Garnaut, the China correspondent for Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald and Age newspapers, reported yesterday that the Open Constitution Initiative, a think tank in Beijing, released a report excoriating China’s Tibet policy.
Open Constitution Initiative is a grouping of Chinese lawyers and academics, and its report, said to be based on research by journalism students on the ground in Tibet and Gansu Province, accuses the central government of funding an elite, self-serving class of Han migrants in ethnic Tibetan areas, and that this class is acting against the interests of locals — and therefore all of China — by seeding conflict and demonizing foreigners and Tibetans alike.
This report is encouraging evidence that across China there is a body of informed and dedicated people working to improve governance and accountability despite Chinese Communist Party (CCP) hostility toward independent criticism. Those courageous enough to associate with organizations like the Open Constitution Initiative or sign the open letter known as Charter 08 are laying foundations for a civic and intellectual culture that can speak publicly and outside CCP control. These people deserve the support of all who care for China’s future.
As Taiwan grows closer to China, local political parties will find it increasingly difficult to avoid the question of what stance they should adopt — or what role they should play — in reforming China and what links they should maintain with such organizations. Until now, the main political parties have preferred avoidance to engagement.
With the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the approach has been simple: Concentrate on Taiwan and leave China alone unless forced otherwise. This has tended to empower parochial elements in the DPP that refuse to acknowledge the benefits of talking to ordinary Chinese. Sadly, too many DPP politicians over the years have dabbled in parochialism that alienates foreign observers and non-aligned voters — and never more obviously than in the waning months of the Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) presidency.
The irony is that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government has not really improved on this record. Cross-strait flights, direct postal services, economic deals and modification of national symbols to attract Chinese praise all have their role in boosting infrastructure and saving or making money, but the most striking thing these developments have in common is their irrelevance to most Chinese.
Ordinary Chinese have gained next to nothing from cross-strait negotiations, and this, combined with the remarkable ignorance of KMT leaders on Chinese current affairs, suggests that the KMT unificationist mantra, while elitist in execution, remains terribly parochial in substance. The biggest problem with this is that the KMT is converting to a philosophy that ignores questions of civic entitlement and mixes cynical capitalism with a reinvigorated tolerance of state oppression — just what Beijing might have ordered.
It is safe to assume that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) personally favors a strong, just and enlightened Chinese state, notwithstanding his softening on the Tiananmen Square Massacre and superficial expressions of concern for the Chinese public.
But by hoisting its unificationist colors so closely to the CCP flagpole, the rest of the KMT will one day find itself forced to choose between the interests of the CCP and those of ordinary Chinese.
The KMT sees a Chinese future for Taiwan, but it cannot defend Taiwanese self-determination until it displays practical and rhetorical support for China’s democracy movement — however fractured, demoralized and inconvenient that movement may be.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS