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.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
RSS