The day before the 23rd anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to China, Beijing enacted national security legislation for Hong Kong. This legislation, unsurprisingly, invited protests and criticism from Western countries, but apparently, Beijing does not give a damn.
It is worth exploring what signal Beijing sent or aimed to send by imposing the legislation after the anti-extradition movement triggered a series of US sanctions.
The first estimation is that Beijing believes US President Donald Trump will lose the US presidential election in November, not so much because of the US-China trade dispute, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Former US vice president Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic candidate, appears more vulnerable than Trump in terms of his China policy. Therefore, Beijing is not worried about its bold move toward Hong Kong.
Nonetheless, this estimation fails to consider the US congressional consensus on taking a hard line against China over Hong Kong.
That said, US foreign policies or trade relations are largely dominated by the US president.
Second, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) seems determined to fulfill his “China Dream” and leave a legacy for the Chinese Communist Party. His ego has prompted him to pursue China’s hegemonic ambitions against all odds.
US-China relations have become confrontational, but China under the Xi regime seems not to be intimidated. Of course, once it appears so, Xi would be devoured by party factions. That is an existential struggle for China and for Xi.
Third, what about Hong Kong? Obviously, Beijing cares more about its own authority than about Hong Kong’s prosperity. The word autonomy is of course absent in the context of the legislation.
As the legislation extends to foreigners in Hong Kong and anyone committing “crimes” in foreign countries, the foundation for Hong Kong’s economy has been uprooted, and capital outflows are likely to accelerate.
Does this mean that Beijing no longer needs Hong Kong as an intermediary for trade or a hub to attract foreign investment?
Will Hong Kong remain a safe intermediary for Western countries to access the Chinese market? Are Western countries still interested in doing so?
Finally, what does this imply for Taiwan? As is known, the “one country, two systems” formula was originally designed by Beijing to lure Taiwan into unifying with China, and Hong Kong happened to be a testing point.
The enactment of the new legislation has made it clear that Beijing does not care to fake it anymore. An even tougher stance against Taiwan is inevitable. Yet what could be worse? Is military conflict unthinkable or should Taiwan think about it now?
Wu Chien-huei is an associate research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of European and American Studies.
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
The pan-blue camp in the era after the rule of the two Chiangs — former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) — can be roughly divided into two main factions: the “true blue,” who insist on opposing communism to protect the Republic of China (ROC), and the “red-blue,” who completely reject the current government and would rather collude with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to control Taiwan. The families of the former group suffered brutally under the hands of communist thugs in China. They know the CPP well and harbor a deep hatred for it — the two
RSS