In view of the protests in Iran, the UN Human Rights Council on Nov. 24 held a special session, at which it decided to set up an international fact-finding mission. During the session, the Chinese representative proposed an oral amendment aimed at canceling the mission, but it was voted down by a majority of other member states.
China also voted against the substantive resolution that was eventually adopted.
Meanwhile, a series of disturbances known as the “Blank Paper Movement” or the “A4 Revolution” have broken out in China.
Referring to the situation in China, UN Human Rights Office spokesman Jeremy Laurence said: “We call on the authorities to respond to protests in line with international human rights laws and standards. No one should be arbitrarily detained for peacefully expressing their opinions.”
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) might have had other concerns about the protests, worrying that a government response might affect the nine-in-one elections in Taiwan on Nov. 26, but now that the votes are counted, it should become clear what he is prepared to do to suppress demonstrations.
Earlier last month, the G20 summit and the APEC economic leaders’ meeting gave Xi a chance to meet face to face with Western leaders for the first time in the three years since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. These interactions showed the strong return of China’s “wolf warrior” diplomacy after Xi’s re-election as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) at its 20th National People’s Congress.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’ one-day visit to Beijing on Nov. 4, and the decisions of the leaders of France and other countries to visit China early next year have been mocked by some Japanese media as Europe’s “tributary diplomacy.”
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has caused shortages of fuel and food, leading to an economic and humanitarian crisis in Europe.
Consequently, some European leaders whose private negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin have failed have turned instead to diplomatic exchanges with China in the hope that Beijing can help put an end to the crisis. They have also expressed concern over peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, but what they are really thinking about is the Chinese market and their own countries’ economies.
The sight of so many leaders bowing must make Xi feel even more confident about his “wolf warrior” diplomacy, authoritarian governance and his idea that the East will rise as the West falls.
However, when he returned home from the meetings, he was greeted by the blank paper protests.
A fire on Nov. 24 at an apartment block in Urumqi, the capital of China’s Xinjiang region, was preceded by a lockdown at a Foxconn factory in Henan Province’s Zhengzhou.
The two incidents were the catalyst for clashes over COVID-19 lockdown measures, but were certainly not the only such uprisings in the three years that China has developed its pandemic response.
Discontented people in many parts of China have spontaneously gathered on the streets to form a movement, with no need for anyone to lead or organize it. Local officials do not dare take the initiative without orders from the CCP Central Committee, so they can do nothing to stop the protests.
The slogans of the protesters show that their discontent has escalated beyond the restraint of freedom imposed by the pandemic regulations, and the impediments to work and income, while there has been no guarantee of adequate medical care. The slogans have become a lot more radical, including: “We want freedom, not COVID-19 testing,” “no more health codes,” “no to dictatorship, yes to democracy,” “no to lifelong tenure,” “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press.”
A few are more specific, saying: “China does not need an emperor,” “down with the CCP” and even calling for Xi to resign.
The slogans echo the protest banners that on the eve of the CCP congress were hung on Sitong Bridge in Beijing, reading: “We want food, not COVID-19 tests,” “we want freedom, not more lockdowns,” “we want dignity, not more lies,” “we want reform, not another Cultural Revolution,” “we want ballots, not a ‘great leader,’” “be a citizen, not a lackey,” and “Remove the authoritarian traitor Xi Jinping.”
To see the sparks flying so soon after the CCP congress is indeed a big challenge for Xi.
It is hard to say whether the blank paper protests will change from an adjective to a verb, but some people are already comparing them to China’s 1989 democracy movement. Although China today is very different from 1989, one apparent similarity is that cracks have appeared in the top leadership.
In 1989, the conservative faction headed by then-Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) and the reformist faction headed by then-CCP general secretary Zhao Ziyang (趙紫陽) took diametrically opposite political positions regarding the spontaneous tributes that members of the public paid to former CCP general secretary Hu Yaobang (胡耀邦) after he died, and regarding the pro-reform movement that grew out of those tributes.
Returning to the present, during the CCP congress, Xi was caught on camera telling former Chinese president Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) to leave the podium. Earlier this year, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang (李克強) took the blame for the economic downturn caused by the “zero COVID-19” policy.
People’s anxiety about their lives and livelihoods under China’s pandemic policy seems to be the reason for the protests, so it is likely that the handover period that started with the CCP congress and ends in March with the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference will coincide with some degree of chaos as the “zero COVID-19” policy is relaxed. That might be when the public vents its frustration that has built up over the past three years.
Some people suspect that the policy, which Xi endorses, was not just a matter of epidemic prevention, but also a rehearsal for a still wider form of digital totalitarianism. The ubiquitous epidemic-control workers clad in white overalls are in a way similar to the Red Guard of the Cultural Revolution, as people have to submit to the lockdowns they enforce.
Politics take precedence over everything else in both cases, with daily life and the whole economy sacrificed for some unspoken goal. This is why the Beijing authorities have yet to acknowledge the vaccine coverage that other governments have achieved and their shift to coexistence with the virus, instead still insisting that strict lockdowns are the only way.
CCP Shanghai Party Secretary Li Qiang (李強), who energetically enforced the “zero COVID-19” policy, and Beijing Party Secretary Cai Qi (蔡奇), who ordered clearances of the city’s “low-end” population, were promoted to the CCP’s Politburo Standing Committee at the CCP congress, at which it was made clear that Xi thinks differently from Hu Jintao and Li Keqiang. What is even more frightening is that he might think differently from all of China’s 1.4 billion citizens.
Most Western countries have not stated their attitude toward the blank paper protests.
In Washington, the US National Security Council only issued a statement saying that it supports everyone’s right to peacefully protest, with its spokesman, John Kirby, saying: “The [US] president’s not going to speak for protesters around the world — they are speaking for themselves.”
Just as “princelings” and official media in China were saying there must be foreign forces involved in the protests, European Council President Charles Michel visited China last week. When China was tightening its grip on Hong Kong, the appeals of Western countries to China fell on deaf ears. Moreover, US President Joe Biden’s administration has stated that it does not seek to change the Chinese system.
Western countries might have different reactions to the protests in Iran and China. European countries, which are already suffering amid the Russia-Ukraine war, do not want additional uncertainties caused by civil unrest in China. Be that as it may, Xi’s handling of this first major challenge of his third term in office will give the international community a clearer image of how he intends to wield his power.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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