Today marks the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre on June 4, 1989.
At the time, many nations expressed horror over the time of the brutal crackdown, condemning the use of state violence against a country’s own citizens.
In Taiwan, where the government then had perhaps the most accurate handle on the nature of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), there was revulsion, but little surprise.
Hong Kongers watched in trepidation. The British government had only four years prior agreed to hand Hong Kong back to China in 1997, having signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1985. If Hong Kongers did not trust then-Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s (鄧小平) promise that their freedoms and way of life would remain unchanged for at least 50 years, the gradual, but persistent erosion of those freedoms since has proven their fears to be well-founded.
The approval by the Chinese National People’s Congress (NPC) last week, with a vote of 2,878 to one, of the creation of national security laws for Hong Kong only confirms that the CCP has no intention of changing. The one dissenting vote was intended as a symbol of democracy; the overwhelming majority was one of unity of purpose and a strong government.
The proposed legislation would expose Hong Kong to crackdowns by China’s security forces for acts of dissent, terrorism and threats to national security. Those acts would be defined as such by the CCP leadership, much as the Tiananmen protests were.
Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥) and Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Zhao Lijian (趙立堅) have tried to paint the US government as hypocritical in its criticisms of Hong Kong and Beijing’s heavy-handed tactics against protesters, pointing at the response to protests over the killing of George Floyd.
Governments in democratic societies are structurally accountable to the electorate and their actions can be influenced, and even prevented, by interest groups, civic groups, opposition politicians and the electoral cycle. They are obliged to listen.
If the military is mobilized against citizens in the US, civil society, the media, other branches of government and outraged individuals would rise up to demand accountability and changes to ensure that appropriate brakes are introduced into the system. The international community, too, would apply pressure.
If the same happened in China, the government propaganda machine would go into overdrive. There would be no recourse for the Chinese public.
The CCP has pulled many Chinese out of poverty, developed a prosperous economy and created the conditions for playing a leading role in the international community.
However, it is like a juggernaut, plowing a predetermined course in front of it, if not derisive of anything or anyone that gets in the way, then oblivious to them.
When Deng decades ago said that the CCP’s policy on Hong Kong would not change in 50 years, it was understood that Hong Kong had been promised a window in which nothing would change. Who then questioned how a politician could confidently state what the country’s policy would be like half a century in the future?
On Thursday last week, in response to the NPC’s decision, the US, Australia, Canada and the UK released a joint statement on Hong Kong.
They called on China to allow Hong Kongers the freedoms they had been promised, and requested that Beijing work with the Hong Kong government and Hong Kongers “to find a mutually acceptable accommodation that will honor China’s international obligations under the ... Sino-British Joint Declaration.”
They must know that the CCP will not be listening.
The CCP’s way is not of negotiation with its populace on a desirable way forward, and certainly not with the international community. It might claim to be working in its citizens’ best interests, but it is not interested in hearing from anyone else what those best interests might be.
The problem is not China; the problem is the CCP.
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