China routinely vilifies any comment on its political practices as unwarranted, outside "interference." Yet Beijing is always ready to lecture the US about its policies.
Most recently, China was outraged when US officials met with Martin Lee (
The 1997 reversion of Hong Kong from a colony of Britain to a Special Administrative Region of China was no cause for celebration to anyone who values human liberty above brutal nationalism.
Still, the city's 6.8 million residents value freedom. Hundreds of thousands rallied last year to oppose proposed "anti-subversion" legislation pushed by China. Many of them now are advocating free elections and universal suffrage. But Beijing has responded to talk of democracy with a vitriolic barrage.
Consider China's reaction to past and present presidential races in Taiwan. Equally threatening is the fact that Hong Kong residents, too, can vote, and have favored independent voices. Bai Gang (白鋼), director of the Centre for Public Policy Research at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, complains, "Pro-democracy politicians have serious inadequacies in identification with the country. However, they have the upper hand over the patriotic camp in Hong Kong."
That is, in China's view, the wrong folks are winning elections. As a result, Lee has more popular legitimacy than does Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤).
Obviously, Washington cannot force China to keep its promises to the people of Hong Kong. Still, though Americans cannot enshrine democracy in Hong Kong, they can talk to democrats in Kong Kong.
US Senator Sam Brownback invited Lee to Washington to testify about the situation in Hong Kong. While there, Lee met with a number of legislators, as well as Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
Nothing seditious about any of this. Indeed, Lee stated his faith that China's top leaders would "get it right."
Nevertheless, Chinese apparatchiks were angry about his trip. Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing (
It brings to mind China's earlier attempts to browbeat Washington into not allowing President Chen Shui-bian (
However, there can be no compromise over the US extending its hospitality to those who share its ideals around the globe. People like Martin Lee should be encouraged, not just allowed, to visit the US.
This is an internal affair for Washington. China has no right to interfere.
Martin Lee is optimistic about Hong Kong's future, believing that Chinese leaders "will know ultimately that democracy is not something they should fear."
We must hope he is right, since the US cannot prevent China from suppressing human rights there or even in Hong Kong. But the US certainly should not suppress human rights in the US at China's behest.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS