The conditions under which Zhao Ziyang (趙紫陽) lived at the time of his death, in utter isolation from Chinese society due to an illegally imposed 16-year house arrest, shames both Chinese justice and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Zhao's persecution was the persecution of a leader who dedicated himself for more than a decade to groundbreaking efforts that became the foundations of China's economic reform. In the late 1970s, peasants had long since lost their rights to own their land, owing to collectivization and the establishment of the People's Commune. It is a right they have never regained. Zhao, however, was the first to advocate giving autonomy back to the peasants and so initiated the first pilot tests to abolish the People's Commune.
Chinese industry had been transformed into subsidiaries of government through nationalization and central planning. Zhao was the first to propose "expanded autonomy for Chinese enterprises" and "restoration of a healthy relationship between government and industry." Expanded autonomy for enterprises and the peasantry were critical first steps whose success led eventually to full-blown economic reform.
These were among the many incremental victories Zhao won to help China's people break out of the suffocating stagnation of Maoist socialism. As China's premier, Zhao implemented 10 years of economic reforms that brought steady progress in which the people, especially the peasantry, enjoyed tangible improvements.
But Zhao was also the only CCP leader to propose a political reform package to tackle China's system of one-party rule. The party's unchallenged monopoly on political power systematically ensured that every mistake it made -- such as the dreadful decade of the Cultural Revolution -- turned into a prolonged nationwide crisis.
For genuine and long-term stability, Zhao proposed reforms that ultimately aimed at the legalization and systemization of democracy. He wished to establish the kind of democratic politics that could sup-port and nurture a healthy market economy. Although the short-term practical objectives of Zhao's political reforms were limited by the circumstances in which they were proposed, the measures were all aimed at containing CCP power and represented a concrete step toward returning, peacefully, power to China's people. Zhao's package -- a sharp break with Mao Zedong's (毛澤東) totalitarianism -- was approved by the 13th Party Congress, officially the highest authority within the CCP.
During his 20 months as general secretary, Zhao created a culture in which the Politburo refrained from interfering in the courts, and he halted its attempts to control literature and the arts. He abolished the policy of enterprises being run by party organizations and the system by which fa ren ("legal representatives") were the core of enterprises.
Unfortunately, Zhao's reforms were terminated upon his fall from power. The dreadful result was the indiscriminate denial of civil rights and the principles of democracy, and the rise of what today's leaders call "socialism with Chinese characteristics" -- a bitter euphemism for unchecked party and government power entwined with commercial interests.
Zhao's fate is also a chilling reminder of other injustices that are on the consciences of those now in power. The only reason for Zhao's continued ill treatment was his opposition to the violent repression of the Tiananmen Square protest in 1989. It should have been his decision to make as general secretary, but things were not as they should have been.
It should be remembered that former general secretary Hu Yaobang (胡耀邦), who had been forced to step down two years earlier by Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) because of his liberal stance, died in April 1989, triggering spontaneous and peaceful student demonstrations in Beijing, which spread across the country. Half a million college students in Beijing alone were involved in this movement.
It lasted 50 days and was heartily supported by Beijing residents and people all around the country, from all walks of life. Zhao pointed out to the Politburo that the sentiments expressed by the students and residents in their commemoration of Hu, in their protests against corruption, and their desire for democracy were really the same sentiments that they themselves held. He believed that it should be possible to resolve the student protests and respect the principles of democracy and the rule of law.
Under Zhao's direction, the Politburo and its standing committee called for dialogue with the students. This hopeful direction changed completely, however, when Deng revealed his desire for a violent crackdown.
In the end, it came down to a fight among five members of the Politburo Standing Committee: Li Peng (李鵬) and Yao Yiling (姚依林) sought to deploy the military. Zhao opposed this. Qiao Shi (喬石) and Hu Qili (胡啟立) initially sided with Zhao, but then withdrew their support and, instead, asked Deng to make the final decision.
With deep divisions evident, Deng chose to bypass all existing institutions, the party's Politburo, the Central Committee and the National People's Congress and its Standing Committee. Without further discussion, Deng mobilized 500,000 troops to enter Beijing to crack down on the unarmed students and civilians. The Tiananmen Square Massacre was a tragedy for China, and another tragedy for the 20th century. Sixteen years have passed, but the pain remains, buried in the hearts and minds of the people.
In the years that have passed, China's leaders were responsible not only for Zhao's unlawful house arrest but also for a systematic effort to erase his name from history. But their attempts to conceal the truth about the past only reveal their weakness and their shamelessness. For there is one thing they cannot change: Zhao remains with us, in the Chinese people's ongoing struggle for rights and democracy.
Bao Tong, former director of the Office of Political Reform of the CCP Central Committee, was secretary to Zhao Ziyang from 1980 to 1985.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS