Hu is clueless
Chinese President Hu Jintao (
It is a fair objective for Russia. Russia threw off the mantle of dictatorship and adopted a more free and open society than under the Soviet communist dictatorship. Russia has held elections, and while still a fledgling democracy, the nation is remaking itself into a democratic nation of laws and rights.
When he adopted the position, Hu no doubt was referring to dominance of the US in the world today, and the fear among "lesser" states that their voices have been subdued in control over international affairs. In other words, countries such as China want their opinions to count in a meaningful way.
By "fair and democratic," China meant that its voice would have just as much weight as that of the US. That is "democracy" according to China. It believes in democracy when it comes to voting on international affairs, so it says.
Is it possible for a sovereign state to clamor for a "democratic" voice in international affairs, and yet deny that same right to its own people with respect to its own affairs? Is it possible for a country that has oppressed over 1 billion people and denied them the right to vote or dissent or worship, or even to speak or think freely, and whose government for over 50 years has been run by a string of self-appointed and brutal dictators, to legitimately argue for a "fair and democratic world based on international rights?"
Presumably "international rights" means human rights. Is it possible a country that routinely suppresses all freedoms and has year after year the worst human rights record on the planet can pretend it is committed to "a fair and democratic world based on international rights?"
Can Hu be so myopic he does not realize that the single most offensive regime in the world is his own? Can he be so myopic he does not realize creating a "multipolar, fair and democratic world based on international rights" would require first of all the dismantling of the Chinese communist dictatorship, where one-sixth of the world's population is under the thumb of brutal tyranny, and granting the right to vote to billions of Chinese?
Perhaps it is not myopia. Perhaps it is more insidious than that. Perhaps China craves the stage, the spotlight, the trappings of power and position, but does not intend to bestow the simple rights of dignity and freedom to its own people. Perhaps Hu is talking about what other nations should do, not China. Perhaps when China demonstrates it truly is a country that is a "fair and democratic [nation] based on international [human] rights" its opinion will count for something.
Right now, China is nothing more than a cash cow, and an ephemeral, untested, dangerous and unpredictable one at that. It is accommodated internationally in the way people step around a viper, or tiptoe around a scorpion, or diplomatically in the way one responds to a blackmailer without conscience.
To earn respect, Hu will be required to actually accomplish what he has unwittingly set out as the goal of humanity. To rid itself of dictators and oppressors, and brutal regimes, likes that of the Chinese Communist Party.
Lee Long-hwa
Pasadena, California
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS