China reacts on June 04, 2004

China reacts angrily to US resolution on Tiananmen

AFP , BEIJING  

China yesterday reacted angrily to a pending US Congressional resolution that condemns the crackdown on the 1989 Tiananmen protests and demands Beijing release from jail a leading democracy campaigner.

"There are a handful of people in the United States Congress that cannot stand what happens in China and they are using all kinds of pretexts to defame China," foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said. "They are not happy to see the improvements in China-US relations and they take pains to set up obstacles to the relationship.

"They will never win the hearts of the people and are bound to fail," he said.

The resolution, co-sponsored by senior Republican legislator Christopher Cox and Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was to come to a vote yesterday.

"On a bipartisan basis, Congress stands united in support of freedom for the people of China," Cox declared this week.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of peaceful protesters were killed in Beijing 15 years ago when the People's Liberation Army assaulted the heart of the capital to end unprecedented democracy protests.

The resolution condemns "ongoing and egregious human rights abuses" and urges the government to order an independent inquiry into the reported killing, torture and imprisonment of democracy activists in Tiananmen Square.

China won't trust its people: Chen

COMPARISONS: The president said that the events of 15 years ago showed Beijing wasn't able to trust its people, unlike in Taiwan, where democracy flourished
By Lin Chieh-yu
STAFF REPORTER  

On the eve of the 15th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, President Chen Shui-bian said yesterday in his weekly newsletter that the crux of the difference between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait was how much the governments "believe in the people."

"The most memorable impression of the Tiananmen incident of June 4th is that of that small, thin person holding up a line of tanks, which was a heroic and disturbing impression," Chen said. "But in March of the following year, Taiwan also experienced the great Wild Lily Students' Movement at the CKS Memorial Hall."

He said that China's Tiananmen movement and Taiwan's student movement, also known as the March Study Movement, were pleas for the same things -- democracy and reform, but that the different measures adopted by the two governments to deal with the events made for contrasting historical turning points for the two sides.

"What the June 4 Tiananmen incident brought was ruthless political suppression; stability was turned completely on its head and the progress of the Chinese people was unceremoniously halted," Chen said. "But the March Study Movement, in pressing for the establishment of a national affairs conference, changing the way the Legislative Yuan and the National Assembly are elected and a consensus on realizing the direct election of the president, also set a timetable for [further] reform," Chen said.

"Fifteen years ago we faced such comparable situations, but 15 years on the results are completely different," Chen said.

"And the reason is that we firmly embrace the principle of believing in Taiwan, believing in the people, which has enabled Taiwan's democratization to avoid unfortunate obstacles and stand on the right side of history," he said.

Chen also urged opposition politicians not to mislead the public by defining Taiwan's democratic development as "populism," which, he said, was no more true of Taiwan's experience than of the earlier experience of Europe and America in forging democratic societies.

He stressed that the people of Taiwan are extremely principled and practical, their eyes gleam with a vision for Taiwan's development, they have a fierce desire to be their own master and to grasp control of their own destiny.

"People who censure others as advocators of `populism' are completely denying the value of democracy and believe that the people are stupid and easily manipulated, so they preach that placing sovereignty in the people is dangerous -- and irresponsible," Chen said.

"In fact, Taiwan's democratization has nothing to do with `populism.' One cannot, just because one's views are different from other people's, say that those other people are populists," he said.

Chen said that on the eve of the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, even more affirmation and respect had to be paid to Taiwan's 23 million people, who, he said, always bring the utmost wisdom to bear.

China: New words, same actions

Today -- June 4 -- is the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. Looking back at the past 15 years, it is difficult to see the slightest indication on the part of the Chinese government to either come to a better understanding of the meaning of democracy and human rights, or to at least show some remorse or regret for brutally suppressing the student democracy movement.

However, it is true that Beijing has finally chosen to describe the bloody crackdown with milder and neutral terms. On Tuesday, China's Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao  called it "political turmoil," contrary to the typical characterization used by Beijing of "anti-revolutionary riot." However, this mere change of wording should not be interpreted as a change of attitude by Beijing, but as a result of discussions among EU members regarding the possible lifting of a 15-year old ban on arms sales to China that was imposed following the Tiananmen Square Massacre. It was reported earlier this week that British Prime Minister Tony Blair is likely to back France and Germany in urging the lifting of the ban. Beijing opted to adopt a milder and less high-profile stance so as not to ruin its chances of getting the ban lifted.

Of course this also raises the question: if there has been no change whatsoever in terms of Beijing's attitude toward either the Tiananmen Square Massacre or democracy and human rights, why lift the ban now? Shouldn't it be lifted only when its original purpose of compelling improvement from China in these areas has been accomplished?

Anyone who pays any attention to what Liu went on to say on Tuesday can readily see that the Chinese government has not changed one bit. Liu defended the crackdown on the students by saying that "[it] played a very good role in stabilizing the situation, which enabled China to develop its economy and make contributions to peace and development of the world."

This has been the consistent policy of Beijing since it ended the "closed-door policy" in the 1980s -- that is, to develop the economy and to evolve into a military super-power, but to say no to all demands for democratic reforms and respect for human rights.

This attitude is further demonstrated by its move to tighten its watch on political activists and relatives of victims of the Tiannanmen Square Massacre in the run up to the 15th anniversary of the incident. Secret police have been closely following these people, taping their phones, and even placing them under house arrest. The sole purpose of all this is to prevent any form of public memorial for the incident, which would only be interpreted as a challenge to the authority of the Chinese government. A countless number of political dissidents who participated in the demonstration in Tiananman Square, as well as their sympathizers, continue to be imprisoned in China. The US State Department expressed concern by openly stating its opposition to "efforts to limit freedom of speech" and urging "China to not restrict its citizens from engaging in debates on important and sensitive issues of public interests."

As for the people of Hong Kong, this attitude on the part of Beijing should not be surprising, because they have learned from past experience of China's complete rejection of any form of democratic reform and respect for human rights. However, it is too late for the people of Hong Kong to do much about it.

But there is still a chance for the people of Taiwan.

Taiwan is lacking a cultural paradigm

By Kuo Li-hsin

In May, the Formsan Association for Public Affairs, jointly funded by Taiwanese and Americans, lobbied the US House of Representatives to pass a resolution that would call for the dispatch of Taiwanese Marines to Iraq. The move caused an uproar among some members of the public, but then the incident seemed temporarily to come to an end. Meanwhile, a number of incidents that undermined the US-led effort in Iraq were reported in the media.

Let's talk about Michael Jordan's quick exit first. Air Jordan flew through China, Hong Kong and Taiwan to promote Nike basketball shoes. But the basketball great's 90-second appearance here angered fans who had splashed out money for a glimpse of the legendary athlete. From the media reports and messages on the Internet, one can tell that the fury did not result from the American capitalistic imperialism that the Jordan icon embodies.

In fact, it was quite the opposite. What they were angry about was that Jordan spent less time with his Taiwanese fans than with those in China and Hong Kong, relegating them to the status of second-rate victims of America's cultural imperialism. Jordan remains a god to his Taiwanese fans, but the fact that he didn't treat them well is extremely embarrassing.

Another Michael won the Palme d'Or in this year's Canne Film Festival with his latest documentary, Fahrenheit 911. The American documentary director Michael Moore dug into the ugly side of the Bush family in his documentary. After its screening at Cannes, the anti-Bush, anti-war film received a 20-minute standing ovation, the longest ever at Cannes. Before the prize was announced, there were two countries where the film's distribution rights were not being eagerly sought -- the US and Taiwan.

In the US, although Walter Disney's art-house subsidiary, Miramax, had bankrolled the documentary, Disney refused to let the unit distribute it for fear of its political and economic fallout (Moore planed to release the film in the run-up to the US' November election and weaken Bush's bid for the presidency). In Taiwan, the reason is simply the poor box office record of Moore's last documentary, Bowling for Columbine. Even if we put aside Columbine's stinging critique of the gun culture rampant in America, anyone who had seen the film would a give thumbs up to the movie. Sadly, Taiwan's audiences have been force-fed with the pap of Hollywood mainstream movies, and have no taste for such films.

Another interesting piece of news was Taiwanese pop singer Luo Da-you's protest against the US Congress' plan to ask Taiwan to send Marines to Iraq. At his concert in Hinchu on May 22, Luo cut up his US passport and declared that he was giving up American citizenship on the spot. A week later, Luo went to the American Institute in Taiwan to formally relinquish his US citizenship.

His actions came as a shock. One was shocked that a gadfly singer known for offering a critique of Taiwanese society in the early 1980s even possessed a US passport, although there was no specific political persecution nor need for exile at that time.

The anti-war or anti-American movement is not only an ideological resistance movement but also a contest of language. If we can only bring to bear worn-out vocabularies and tired gestures against the sweet words of American imperialism, then both our governments and those of other countries can simply ignore us. Even those youngsters hanging out in McDonald's and Starbucks near the AIT probably won't even bother to pop their heads out and see what is happening out there.

Kuo Li-hsin is a lecturer at the department of radio and television at National Chengchi University.