This year’s protests in Hong Kong began with the aim to oppose the introduction of a proposed extradition law that would have let authorities detain and extradite suspects wanted in places such as Taiwan and mainland China, with which Hong Kong does not have extradition agreements.
Many were concerned that the bill would subject Hong Kong residents and visitors to Beijing’s jurisdiction, undermining the territory’s autonomy and civil liberties. The protesters laid out five key demands, which included investigation into alleged police misconduct against protesters and resumption of democratic reforms.
China today poses formidable challenges for international businesses. Rising nationalism, growing universality of social media and geopolitical tensions have made it increasingly difficult for multinational companies to stay apolitical in an increasingly sensitive and bullying China.
A recent incident between the National Basketball Association and China shows the difficulty in balancing support for democratic values and not upsetting a hugely profitable market of 1.4 billion consumers.
Hong Kong’s unrest illustrates the failure of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” model. Hong Kong protests echo the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, which is especially ironic as Communist China celebrated its 70th anniversary this month.
The problem of national identity might be more troubling. As feelings toward mainland China harden, some have initiated more radical calls for Hong Kong’s independence, as opposed to the proper implementation of the Basic Law that is supposed to protect the territory’s relative autonomy.
A worrisome pattern has emerged as some protesters have begun to act with greater ferocity. Hardline protesters see themselves as being forced to take justice into their own hands in a system that lacks accountability. Large marches have ended in violent confrontations, vandalism and arson.
Pro-democracy advocates have singled out companies such as Starbucks and Apple that they consider enemies of their movement, and vandalism and calls for boycotts have followed. Tourism numbers and financial markets have plunged, clear indications that months of clashes are decimating the territory’s economy.
The lack of an extradition treaty with Hong Kong and fear of compromising sovereignty have led to an unfathomable reluctance by Taiwan to exercise jurisdiction over Chan Tong-kai (陳同佳), a Hong Kong resident who is a suspect in the murder of his girlfriend in Taiwan.
Chan has recently expressed a willingness to surrender himself and face prosecution in Taiwan. That the administration of President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) immediately conceded to public criticism and is now willing to entertain Chan’s request, despite political considerations, ought to be commended.
As a beacon of Chinese culture and democracy, Taiwan continues to challenge China to abandon authoritarianism and embrace political reform.
The rule of law and human rights are imperative to Hong Kong, just as continued order and prosperity. Clearly, demonstrations are far more powerful when they are peaceful. That some protesters have resorted to violence can only be condemned, as must excessive force used by the police.
Radical violent methods by protesters and police alike do not help resolve the controversy.
Beijing and the Hong Kong government should respond to the legitimate calls for democracy. Peaceful communication and dialogue serve the better course toward reconciliation and stability.
Alfred Tsai is a doctoral candidate at the University of Wisconsin Law School and editor of the Taiwan Weekly e-mail newsletter.
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