China is Myanmar's UN Security Council protector and patron. This stark fact is the first thing to consider before entering into a long-winded debate about how much pressure China should apply to Myanmar diplomatically, or in any other way.
Given that Myanmar's military government has done very well for itself in the face of present sanctions, any sensible retaliation against it by the international community will require new tactics. But sending in a UN envoy to smooth over atrocities and lend the junta dignity by advocating half-cocked solutions is not one of them: The UN will be toyed with in the same way that Myanmar has toyed with the world over the fate of activist Aung San Suu Kyi.
The severity of the international response to Myanmar's latest assault on unarmed civilians and basic human dignity will need to be felt more by Myanmar's unofficial partners -- China, India and Singapore, in particular -- than the regime itself, at least for the moment.
Tighter sanctions are unavoidable and necessary, even if in the medium term they appear ineffective. However, their impact would be greatly increased if Myanmar's advocates were also carefully targeted. States and companies that continue to sustain this military government with non-humanitarian aid, weapons, economic opportunities or international influence must have real pressure placed on them. Otherwise, it's all hot air.
The US and the EU in particular must seize this opportunity to punish countries and companies outside their borders that profit from the misery of the Burmese people. In this regard, it is encouraging that some in Europe are seeing through the nonsense that China spouts about non-interference in the domestic affairs of other countries -- and naming the Beijing Olympics as a possible point of retaliation over China's ignoble history in Burmese affairs.
One fundamental reason why China will not transform the style of Myanmar's government is that Beijing uses the same methods to control its own population. China has deployed troops against its own unarmed civilians before, and will do so again if corresponding circumstances present themselves.
It is also important to note that a genuinely democratic Myanmar would jeopardize Chinese interests in Southeast Asia.
Yet, if Taiwan's envoy to the US is to be believed, the latest violence may see the US cozying up to Beijing -- again -- in the belief that the Chinese are in the best position to bring this vicious little junta to heel, as with the North Koreans.
We can only hope that the US State Department will have the wisdom not to allow engagement with China on this matter to turn into a gambling chip for cross-strait maneuvering. In so doing the US would reward China -- again -- for its support for repressive governments.
As with China's enthusiasm for autocracy at home and abroad, the truth about Myanmar is stark and unforgiving.
It will not compromise unless it is forced to do so. It understands only the brutality that sustains the garish privileges of the ruling clique at the expense of the welfare -- and lives -- of ordinary people.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
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,
RSS