The friendship visit by US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi was greatly appreciated by Taiwanese and government officials alike. It was followed by the visits of hostile warplanes, missiles, drones and submarines from China, which were very much unwelcome by locals.
It seems that China’s ruling elites believe that the intimidation of war, the tyranny of dominance and the threat of destruction can win the hearts and minds of Taiwanese. Their illogical and far-fetched concept is based on, according to Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Hua Chunying (華春瑩), the presence of 38 Shandong dumpling restaurants and 67 Shanxi noodle restaurants in Taiwan, which apparently demonstrate the public’s affection for China.
Sarcastically, former US Department of State spokesperson Morgan Ortagus countered that China, with its thousands of KFC restaurants, “has always been part of Kentucky.”
Meanwhile, China’s ambassadors to Australia and France have advocated the “re-education of Taiwanese” — a tacit admission that Xinjiang’s internment camps are used to re-educate Uighurs and other Muslims — showing that Chinese diplomates are no better than propagandists who lack an understanding of democracy and human rights.
Beyond the incompetence of officials who were neither scrutinized nor chosen by the people, there are more shortcomings in an autocratic government that suppresses freedom and deprives people of creativity. Without media freedoms, it is difficult to identify, report and punish corruption. This makes a nation impossible to govern in the long run. Worse, the purge of corruption has always been a tool to consolidate power during regime change, only to add more chaos to a treacherous transfer of power.
Without institutional integrity and independence, justice and social fairness cannot be guaranteed. The lack of check and balance easily lead to fatalities such as those during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns — crimes such as police cooperating with gangs, secret societies and “Chinese mafia,” bribery of national and local government officials and insecure bank loans to powerful elites.
Without freedom in enterprise, a planned economy by the central government could enable a society to thrive in a relatively underdeveloped economy. However, it lacks the natural selection process through economic evolution to prevent mistakes from piling up. That means non-performing financial assets will grow, efficiency will be jeopardized and productivity will fall, contributing to a loss in competitive edge. These were clearly revealed in the Soviet Union before its collapse, and evidently emerging in China.
What followed the planned economy can be difficult, if not impossible, for a centralized government to tackle, since it intrinsically lacks the innovation to compete in the marketplace. In a free economy of capitalism, the natural selection of strong enterprise and the “creative destruction” of inferior companies constantly improves efficiency, productivity, quality and even labor relations. While capitalism tends to create wealth disparity, a planned economy has a far worse record of wealth creation. Furthermore, capitalism, with the right social agenda, can in principle reduce wealth inequality, although that remains to be worked out.
China is now dominated by the culture of Mao Zedong (毛澤東): a mix of communism, autocracy, party and worse. The burst of its housing bubble, a run on its banks, unprofitable high-speed rail systems, the debt burden its Belt and Road Initiative and high unemployment, especially among the young people, are clear signs that the days of the Chinese Communist Party are numbered.
James J. Y. Hsu is a retired physics professor.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS