US President Donald Trump’s administration’s confused response to the Hong Kong crisis risks emboldening Beijing.
In June, Hong Kongers began demonstrating against a proposed extradition bill that threatens the territory’s autonomy.
Opposition to this proposal was so strong that at its peak, 2 million people were on the streets — roughly one-third of the population.
In response, the Hong Kong government suspended the bill, but did not fully withdraw it, a measure that was not good enough for many. This face-saving fudge, alongside the government’s general ineptitude and police brutality perpetrated under its watch, has led to weeks of demonstrations.
As the dispute went on, the list of demands from this leaderless movement grew. Most want an inquiry into the police’s behavior, others amnesty for those arrested.
There were calls for Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥) to step down and the demand for democratic reform was renewed. All of this from a people who have experienced little but disappointment since the “Umbrella movement” in 2014.
Their determination should be applauded, as it has been by members of the US Congress, who have also warned Beijing that the world is watching to see how it responds. The US Department of State, too, has remained reliably resolute. Meanwhile, in recent months, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and US Vice President Mike Pence have warmly welcomed leading pro-democracy figures to Washington.
Yet Trump’s remarks have bordered on the facile, from calling the protests a “very tough situation” to saying “I just hope it gets solved.” Not to mention the praise he has heaped on Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General Secretary Xi Jinping (習近平) via Twitter.
In dangerous times, as armored Chinese paramilitary vehicles move along the Shenzhen-Hong Kong border, the US must show resolve — instead of appearing confused.
Worse still, on Aug. 1, the US president told the press: “Something is probably happening with Hong Kong, because when you look at, you know, what’s going on, they’ve had riots for a long period of time. And I don’t know what China’s attitude is. Somebody said that at some point they’re going to want to stop that, but that’s between Hong Kong and that’s between China, because Hong Kong is a part of China. They’ll have to deal with that themselves. They don’t need advice.”
This is problematic for several reasons: One of the most objectionable being that it buys into the CCP’s line that what happens in Hong Kong is its business alone.
This is not the case. The US has interests in the territory, and not just commercial ones. Safeguarding democracy and human rights has been, when the country is at its best, a core goal of US foreign policy. After all, it was Republican Party darling and former US president Ronald Reagan who said that the US has an obligation “never to let those who would destroy freedom dictate the future course of life on this planet.”
Clearly this lofty 1980s idealism is a far cry from the current “America first” agenda whereby trade trumps most other considerations.
According to Politico, angling to improve his trade deal, Trump promised Xi that he would not condemn the Chinese government over a crackdown during a telephone call in mid-June. If true, this would explain the mixed messages coming from the White House and the rest of the administration in recent months.
Not only is this sort of silence cowardly, but it is also the sort of signal that has historically tempted tyrants. Fortunately, in recent days, Trump’s mercantilist mindset appears somewhat mollified with the president telling Xi that a trade deal will be dependent on a peaceful resolution to the Hong Kong protests.
Whether this change of course will make the US’ position appear more resolute, or just confuse Beijing more, remains to be seen.
Gray Sergeant is a British writer focusing on East Asian politics.
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
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,
“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