The year 2002 is a momentous political year for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). It is the year of the 16th National Congress, at which grand occasion decisions about the transfer of power to a new generation of leaders must be made. Taiwanese and international media are all paying close attention to this issue. As the national congress approaches, the CCP leaders have gone to Beidaihe where political in-fighting is underway on a small scale as a prelude to the real CCP power struggle at the 16th National Congress.
The reason why the international community attaches great importance to the generational changes in the CCP is that China is an authoritarian society, characterized by the rule of man and not by the rule of law. Since transfers of power in the CCP are not conducted in accordance with any formal, institutionalized system, the outcome of the power struggle will determine who gets promoted and who has to step down. There is a high level of general interest in the power transfer because of the general opinion that it could affect CCP policy. The media have already speculated extensively on a possible reorganization of the CCP. Many media have reported that President Jiang Zemin (江澤民) is in love with his power and does not want to step down. Many specialists on the other hand say that Jiang will go into full or semi-retirement, while some media place the focus on the awkward position of Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) and other would-be fourth generation leaders.
The common feature of these media reports and expert analyses is the high level of uncertainty that surrounds them, not least because the CCP's own history has highlighted the fact that the outcome of a power struggle is by nature highly uncertain. In the past, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) appointed first Liu Shaoqi (劉少奇) and then Lin Biao (林彪) as his successor, both of whom ultimately met tragic fates. Finally, he came up with the little known Hua Guofeng (華國鋒), confounding all the experts. In the same way, Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) appointed first Hu Yaobang (胡耀邦) and then Zhao Ziyang (趙紫陽) as his successor. But the two of them were also sidelined, and in the end the appointment of Jiang was just as unforeseen as that of Hua had been. Thanks to these historical lessons, some experts on the CCP simply duck questions about the power transfer since they just don't have answers.
It is interesting to see that in the face of this media frenzy, however, the Chinese media maintain their silence, as if the issue is not worthy of any attention, even though everyone knows that this is not the case. The reason why the Chinese media hold their tongue is that they are controlled by the CCP. On this important issue, they do not have the freedom to choose to report or not to report. The media, which in the West are respected as the fourth estate, lack freedom in China. This reflects the true nature of the CCP dictatorship and its authoritarianism.
The 1.3 billion Chinese people who also should be given attention in this media feast are instead ignored. They are outsiders, mere observers, in this competition for power. Their likes and dislikes are unrelated to the outcome of the power struggle. While an absolute majority of the world's nations now elect their presidents, prime ministers or premiers, the people of China can at best elect their village leaders. The right to vote or stand for election is still controlled by the CCP. The people have no say in the matter, much less any power to make decisions, and have no choice but to accept changes to the CCP's central leadership. Things that the vast population of China cares about, such as steadily rising unemployment, constant increases in the numbers of laid-off workers, the huge migrant population, the difficulties of farmers in making ends meet, the rampant corruption among government officials and the increasing income gap are all unrelated to this ongoing power game in the CCP.
It seems as if Taiwanese and international media routinely ignore the existence of the vast Chinese population in their reports on the CCP power transfer. The media only care for news directly related to the power struggle inside the top CCP leadership, neglecting China's hidden political, economic and social issues, when in fact these are the issues that will decide the future of China. Many local media are in the habit of only reporting positive news from China, leaving out any negative reports. This can only mislead the people of Taiwan and land Taiwanese businessmen in trouble, while exerting no positive influence on China and its development. When we read news about the Chinese power struggle and the generational change, we would hope for more in-depth reporting giving a more complete picture of the true situation in China.
Lin Wen-cheng is director of the Institute of Mainland China Studies at National Sun Yat-sen University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS