I had the honor to take part in the massive street demonstration on March 26. As someone who is from the People's Republic of China, I stood by my friends in Taiwan's media to send our message to the whole world, protesting against China's passing of the "Anti-Secession" Law. The protesters who flooded into Taipei from across the country clearly showed Taiwan's mainstream opinion.
Beijing originally placed its hope on those pan-blue camp supporters. Never did it expect that the Taiwanese people's reaction to the law would be so strong. It misjudged Taiwan's mainstream opinion again, thereby putting itself at a disadvantage. To avoid humiliation in the face of the massive demonstration, Chinese authorities have employed a dual tactic to influence the expression of Taiwan's public opinion.
On March 25, the Hong Kong-based China News Agency quoted insiders as saying that those drafting and brought in to advise on the law agreed that Article 9, which states that "the state shall do its utmost to protect the lives, property and other legitimate rights and interests of Taiwan civilians and foreign nationals in Taiwan, and to minimize losses," implies a rejection of the use of nuclear weapons by the People's Liberation Army. The report also claimed that Chinese authorities and the military had already reached a consensus on this.
Those who initiate a war always do their best to protect the lives and property of civilians unless they are maniacs. But it is another story when they have no choice. Thus, if China really has to stage a war to save face, is there any action at which it will baulk? In 1989, China killed many civilians during the Tiananmen Square massacre, so why would Taiwan be any different? Are nuclear weapons not included in the so-called "non-peaceful means and other necessary measures" stated in Article 8? In that case, why can't Beijing change it to "non-peaceful means and other necessary measures other than nuclear weapons?"
Besides using deceitful tactics, the Chinese authorities have also used threats. Academics attending the seminar of the China-based Research Center of Cross-Strait Relations held on March 24 lambasted the "March 26 Demonstration for Democracy and Peace," alleging that it was organized by pro-independence forces to tarnish and criticize China's new law.
The acadamics regarded the rallyas provocative behavior and urged Taiwanese people not to join the demonstration. All four deputy directors of the Taiwan Affairs Office showed up at the seminar, a demonstration of China's determination in the face of the protests.
The Anti-Secession Law, tailor-made by Chinese President Hu Jintao (
The media and international human-rights groups in the US, Japan, the UK, Germany, Canada, Australia and other countries also criticized the legislation. The condemnation has surprised China. We can say that this is the greatest failure in China's diplomacy in recent years.
And Hu's troubles are far from over. Last month, when both the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and the National People's Congress were held, the Beijing authorities coerced Hong Kong chief executive Tung Chee-hwa (董建華) to resign by citing health worries, since Beijing thought that most Hong Kongers would support such a move. Donald Tseng (曾蔭權), is expected to be the sole candidate in the restricted election in July. Unexpectedly, Hong Kong's Basic Law lacks clear stipulations regarding the term of an interim leader. This has led to fierce disputes and shown once again that the Basic Law is open to interpretation by Beijing.
Although Tseng was appointed as Tung's deputy, many pro-China critics regard him as a product of colonialism. They have, therefore, cooperated with some Hong Kong-based business tycoons to find another candidate for the July election in order to block Tseng from becoming a spokesman for some other business consortium. The fact that Hong Kong's political world is now tangled up in bickering is an indication that Hu's authority in the territory is being challenged. The pro-democracy force's "protesting against China; disturbing Hong Kong" and the pro-Beijing force's "supporting China; disturbing Hong Kong" is something that the authorities in Beijing did not expect.
We want to see how Hu will deal with these difficulties. It appears that his drive to collect a million-name petition to prevent Japan from becoming a permanent member of the UN has ignited nationalist sentiment to distract the Chinese people's attention from affairs in Taiwan and China. This could provide some temporary relief.
After 13 years in a subservient position, Hu brooked no delay in wielding his power, but he has allowed things to get totally out of hand. Would the Chinese leadership, which has carried over from the time of former president Jiang Zemin (江澤民), sit by and watch Hu's mistakes without making any response? Although high-ranking officials put on a facade of unity, we can't rule out the possible emergence of a new power struggle in the Chinese Communist Party, as well as possible changes in policies of the Chinese government.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
Translated by Eddy Chang and Lin Ya-ti
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS