Since first emerging in Tunisia, the “Jasmine Revolution” has faced much resistance, especially in Libya, Yemen and Syria. In China, too, any suggestion of a Jasmine Revolution has been met with severe suppression. In February, when the revolution had just started, Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi said he approved of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, claiming that the suppression of the student movement had been necessary. After two months of bombardment by NATO forces, Qaddafi remains resolute, refusing to step down or go into exile.
Despite frequent civil unrest and unprecedented levels of international pressure, China continues to suppress human rights supporters and dissidents, as well as Christian churches. It seems that neither the Libyan nor the Chinese totalitarian regime will just disappear, although it is likely the Libyan regime will fall first, owing to Western military intervention. China, on the other hand, has been intensifying the suppression of its people — starting with its strong objection to the human rights activist Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波) winning the Nobel Peace Prize — fearing the spread of the nascent Jasmine Revolution of North Africa and the Middle East into China.
From April this year, the Beijing Shouwang Church has been holding services outdoors, persisting even though the Chinese government has responded by arresting worshipers every Sunday for the past seven weeks, and putting still more worshipers and preachers under house arrest. The church has refused to back down and the government has kept up its suppression. Similar treatment has been given to other churches throughout China, such as the Shanghai Wanbang Xuanbao Church, Guangzhou Liangren Church and the Early Rain Reformed Church in Chengdu.
The Shouwang Church began in 1993 as a bible study group of less than 10 people. By 2005, after merging with similar churches, it had expanded into a large church of a thousand members and began renting offices for meetings. In 2006, it applied for permission to establish a church, and the State Administration for Religious Affairs insisted that it obtain an official Three Self Church license. The church declined, wanting to maintain its independent status. After this, the government turned down its application and took action to suppress it, making sure that no one would rent the church members the premises they needed. On Nov. 1, 2009, the church held a get-together in a park, followed by a bigger outdoor service the week after. Nobody was arrested during this time because US President Barack Obama was visiting China at the time.
Later, when the church had purchased a property with funds it had raised itself, the government ensured that it did not receive the keys. The outcome of this was that, having nowhere to hold its services, the church members continued to congregate in outdoor locations and the authorities continued the arrests.
This is by no means an isolated case: There have been many examples of confrontation with the government recently, similar to these clashes with church groups, but by no means restricted to religion. The Mothers of Tiananmen — a group consisting of mothers of the student victims of the Tiananmen Square Massacre who are seeking recompense — for example, has been shunned by the government, and has had its progress hindered and its members detained. It is truly amazing that a totalitarian regime such as this has survived for as long as it has.
Chiu Hei-yuan is a research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of Sociology.
TRANSLATED BY KATHERINE WEI
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent