Looks like we've got the new Chinese leadership on the run! Woohoo! Just goes to show the extent of "one country, two systems"'s inherent self-contradictions. ---------------------------------- Double whammy for Deng model By CNN Senior China Analyst Willy Wo-Lap Lam Wednesday, December 3, 2003 Posted: 0012 GMT ( 8:12 AM HKT) http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/01/willy.column/index.html HONG KONG, China (CNN) -- It's a double whammy for late patriarch Deng Xiaoping's celebrated "one country, two systems" model. Suddenly, Beijing feels itself overwhelmed by the flowering of people power, and the demand for unbridled democracy, in both Taiwan and Hong Kong. The separatist movement spearheaded by Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian, as well as the unprecedented clamoring for universal suffrage in Hong Kong, has presented the one-year-old administration of President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao with its toughest challenge. In Taiwan, Beijing's long-standing reunification crusade has been dealt a blow by Chen's skillful manipulation of the Taiwanese urge to be their own masters. While Hong Kong became part of China in 1997, Beijing faces the prospect of a substantial loss of control as it tackles mounting pressure to grant the Special Administrative Region something neither Deng nor Hu has been willing to give: a ballot for everybody. "Differences between Taiwan and Hong Kong notwithstanding, Beijing is beset with a similar problem: populist, savvy politicians exploiting the locals' desire for democracy and autonomy to resist central control," a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) cadre familiar with Beijing's Taiwan and Hong Kong policies said. "The [pro-independence] Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] in Taiwan and Hong Kong's democrats are either directly or subtly casting central authorities as a hostile 'external power' that can only be kept at bay by the assertion of democracy and people power." The cadre said Beijing was put in an embarrassing position because open opposition to democratization in either places would expose itself to criticisms that it had become the enemy of the people. Chen's wily use of people power was evident last week as the Legislative Yuan passed the law on referendums, which the DPP chief said was a "hallmark of democracy". Ironically, a watershed in the DPP's people-power campaign was that in the middle of last month the Kuomintang (KMT) and the People's First Party (PFP) -- which favor eventual reunification with the mainland -- abruptly shifted gears and threw their support behind holding referendums. "The KMT and PFP's move caught Beijing by surprise," said a Beijing-based expert on Taiwan. "The CCP leadership is faced with the fact that in order to preserve their influence -- and gain votes -- even its would-be allies, the KMT and the PFP, have to adopt fairly populist policies." A not dissimilar situation has taken place in Hong Kong since the July 1 demonstrations, in which more than 500,000 people marched against the rule of the Beijing-appointed chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa. That the focus of traditionally apolitical Hong Kong residents has shifted to fighting for universal-suffrage election of the next chief executive is evident from the results of the district board elections late last month. The 44 percent voter turnout rate was unprecedented. And fully 80 percent of candidates fielded by the Democratic Party of Hong Kong -- which ran on a one-person, one-vote platform -- were successful. All along, a central premise to Beijing's interpretation of one country, two systems, is that being an economic, not political city, the SAR will contentedly dance to the CCP leadership's tune if its commercial aspirations are satisfied. And the Hu leadership has cleft to this strategy after the July 1 protests by granting a series of sweetheart business deals to Hong Kong. Yet as Democratic Party chairman Yeung Sum noted, "the District Board elections show the Hong Kong public wants democracy, not just economic opportunities." Time running short An SAR-based mainland scholar saw an intriguing parallel between the KMT-PFP's sudden conversion to referendums and the business-oriented Hong Kong Liberal Party's change of tack since July 1. A few days after the demonstrations, Liberal Party chairman James Tien quit Tung's cabinet. And Tien and his traditionally pro-government colleagues have since given at least theoretical support to universal-suffrage polls. The scholar said Hu and Wen are chairing marathon meetings of their advisers on what to do with the twin Taiwan-Hong Kong imbroglio. Time is running short. In next September's Legislative Council elections in Hong Kong, the democrats may gain more than 30 of the legislature's 60 seats, after which their momentum may be unstoppable. For Taiwan, Beijing is relying on a reluctant, somewhat ambivalent White House -- as well as potentially counter-productive intimidation tactics by the People's Liberation Army -- to rein in Taipei. The passage of the law on referendums, however, has shown Chen is as adept at pushing the envelope as moving the goal posts. And despite his missiles and Kilo-class submarines, Hu is at least temporarily flummoxed by Chen and his followers.
Most people that I know from mainland China care more about making money than democracy, and the party members I know care more about Communism than one would believe is rational.
I have always been fascinated with China and its political structure and drive to appear to the world as a major force (the recent space launch for example). I believe they are accomplishing their goal only in the short term. The one country two party system model is doomed to failure. The scope of the collapse is of course yet to be determined – hopefully it will be diplomatic. Taiwan/ Hong Kong will never truly be part of China again; they will only continue to distance themselves from an antiquated system of government.
I really think this is another attempt to over blown the whole Hong Kong thing. Let's see, people of Hong Kong were dis satisfied with some of the policies, they protested, and here's the thing, the Chinese government ALLOWED the protest / demonstration to go on without any interference. If that's not a sign from the government that they are atleast moving towards improving human rights I don't what is. One last thing, did the British grant democracy to the people of Hong Kong or did they have magistrates sent from England? Yeah I can see a big difference alright. I would like to first state that the policy that the people of Hongkong protested against I disagree on some level also and I supoorted the protest, but the thing is the protest worked. Last I heard, they are withdrawning the policies.
the general principle is: i'm for everything which serves the interests of taiwan. i'm against everything which harms the interests of taiwan. if communism serves to help taiwan be free, prosperous and happy, then i'm for communism. if china recognises and works towards the interests of taiwanese people, then i'm for china. if not, then i'm not. it's that simple.
The Brits never gave HKers democracy. They only wanted to serve the interest of the Brit expats and their businesses. When Chris Patton governed tiny HK, he was making more money than the US president and didn't pay any taxes. Then again, Moochie makes more than the leader of the free world. But I digress.
Spin spin spin... Hong Kong is part of China, so Hong Kong's democratic movement is "within" China, so is Taiwan's. In order not to confuse the readers, I suggest you change the thread title into something like "democratic movement within China", or upon failing to do so, be a man and apologize for misleading people. Thanks.
http://finance.sina.com.cn/g/20011021/1_31-1-46_20011021133652.jpg Rise of Democracy against China in Shanghai APEC. http://finance.sina.com.cn/g/20011021/1_31-1-46_20011021161014.jpg Rise of Bush against China in Shanghai APEC.
Actually, democracy rises against the detrimental democracy(where lawmakers repeatedly fight like punks in parliament) in Taiwan. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2003-12/02/content_1210165.htm WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 (Xinhuanet) -- The United States opposes any referendum designed to change Taiwan's status or move it towards independence, US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Monday. Boucher was commenting on Chen Shuibian's latest proposal to hold a "defensive referendum" in March 2004 in Taiwan. "We would be opposed to any referenda that would change Taiwan's status or move towards independence," Boucher said at the State Department's regular news briefing. "We also urge both sides to refrain from actions or statements that increase tensions or make dialogue more difficult to achieve," Boucher said. He reaffirmed that "the United States has always held and again reiterates that cross-strait dialogue is essential to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait area." Boucher added that the United States takes it "very seriously" that Chen pledged "not to declare independence, not to change the name of Taiwan's government and not to add the 'state-to-state' theory to the constitution, and not to promote a referendum to change the status quo on independence or unification" in his inaugural address in 2000.
problem is, the referendum is going to be about "one country two systems" and against "chinese military intimidation". so they are still going to take place. this pledge was for this term. guess what? this term expires when the referendum is held. and there were preconditions for his pledge, namely that china stops threatening us with a million missiles. china violated those conditions. ergo, all bets are off. i love it! the taiwanese people are aiming this one right up the communist party's a$$!!! and there is absolutely nothing the chinese can do about it.
I admire your ability to still act like a winner after being slapped right back in the face by your closet and biggest "ally".
panda, you must have missed the clarification issued by the state department the day after boucher's comments, which reiterated specifically that america DOES NOT OPPOSE taiwanese independence, and that her opposition to an independence referendum should in no way be construed to represent any shift in america's support for taiwan. boucher's comments the previous day in no way affected anyone anyway, since nobody in taiwan is planning an independence referendum. cuz DUH!!! WE'RE ALREADY INDEPENDENT!!! the referenda taiwan IS considering are about officially rejecting china's proposed one-country-two-systems, rejecting china's continued military intimidation of taiwan, and other domestic issues. again, maybe it's your source of news. (we all know Xinhua is the most unbiased source of news in the world... ) but i urge you again to keep up with current events more before you begin your rants in here.
I'm not sure if the clarification was out the time I posted. But that doesn't matter, the USA doesn't either oppose it or support it. It wants to keep status quo, which is also what China wants. I searched google and yahoo before posting that report, and I happened to find that Xinhua's report contains most of the quotes and least editorial throw-in at the time.
it is in the best economic interest of Taiwan that its biggest trading partner (China) enjoys political stability. China is pushing for unification. Japan, formerly the # a trading partner of Taiwan, has harmed the economic interest of Taiwan. Japan has been very much anti-China unification. In view of the economic ramifications, what is your position on China unification? I am a proponent of the most pragmatical alternative---China unification.
the people of taiwan, i guess, would be the best judge of their own interests. if they want to be closer to america and japan. it's their choice. if they want to have better relations with china. it's their choice too. i support whatever decision they make. personally, i'm for long-term unification, and i do believe that economically that is taiwan's future. but there are so many pre-conditions (such as democracy, legal reform, taiwanese consent, etc.) i'd place on that unification, that think that it will take several decades to complete. in the mean time, i think taiwanese nationalistic aspirations need to be met. they want to have international representation. they want to have official recognition and national dignity. none of these things are fundamentally at odds with eventual unification, unless china decides to actively oppose these efforts (as it is doing now). if china would only REVERSE its policy towards taiwan, and support taiwan's efforts internationally, i think our relations will improve FAR FASTER. and the result will be a much sooner, far more harmonious and peaceful unification. that's is why i get into so many arguments with chinese people on this board. they say i am pro-independence. and in a sense, they are right. but i'm pro-independence because i believe independence is the fastest way to unification.
Slighthtly off topic, but nonetheless relevant Often here an arguement of eminant domain has been presented with relation to the ROC for China. The arguement is that the land that is now "Taiwan" has always been part of China and therefore belongs to China. This is a serious question for the Chinese citizens here who consider the ROC's historical status as part of China to be significant cause to prove ownership for the PRC: How do you therefore consider any territory west of, say Chengdu and south of Dunhuang to be part of China (much less any part of Tibet or anything north of the historical border defined by the Great Wall)? Using the same principals wouldn't it then be appropriate to abrogate these lands? After all, these are essentially the borders of China that are constant through the Quin and Han periods through the modern era. Certanly the northern border defined by the great wall is about as clear an endpoint of ownership as can be defined? Even later, greater dynasties like the Ming, which extended to the north and south extended no further west than Chengdu. While I am generally unsymphetic to what I consider to be not much more than an onanistic nationalism, I would be willing to rethink the position if I were given compelling evidence. At the moment, I see the arguements for the "right to repatriation" as little more than thinly disguised PRC imperialistic bluster.
Why don't you ask a question why Iraq is not a part of Ottoman? Or why France isn't a part of Germany, or Italy in stead? Other than showing off your knowledge in history, I can not believe you are not able to figue out the answer to your question yourself. If you do have difficulty, ask again, I'm glad to help out.
