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.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US