Growing Unrest in China – USA Gov Policy

The CCP leadership in Beijing is concerned about growing domestic unrest this fall and the long-term implications for stability within the country. Chinese citizens are upset and demonstrating over the government’s zero Covid-19 policy which has led to tragic incidents and a downturn in the economy. In one case, fire and rescue personnel were unable to reach victims when a fire broke out in a locked down high-rise apartment building. Citizens were incensed by the needless deaths of the apartment dwellers. The demonstrations across China are bringing about comparisons to the 1989 demonstrations in Tiananmen Square. The government is censoring news about the deaths and demonstrations. Photos of demonstrators holding blank white placards symbolizing their lack of free speech quickly spread across the Internet.

The earlier demonstrations, beginning in April 1989, were sparked by the death of the reformist Chinese Communist Party Chief Hu Yaobang. Protests spread to major cities across China, along with violence and the student occupation of Tiananmen Square in Beijing. More than 100,000 students took to the streets in the capital. More recently, on the 30^th anniversary of Hu’s death, the Chinese government removed mentions of him on Weibo and the Chinese Internet. Leaders again feared unrest and chaos could spread and threaten the Party’s tight grip on the country.

Last month, just as protests were starting to calm down, former CCP General Secretary Jiang Zemin, passed away at the age of 96. “The timing of Jiang’s death was striking as it occurred amidst the largest public pushback against CCP rule since the student protest movement in spring 1989, which culminated in the June 3-4 Tiananmen Square massacre that preceded his assumption of CCP leadership at the 13th Central Committee’s Fourth Plenum that same month,” notes John S. Van Oudenaren of the Jamestown Foundation.

Similarly, the CCP leadership feared the current wave of demonstrations, ostensibly about the severe Covid lockdown, could morph into a more general renunciation of the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party and its principal leaders in a similar way to 1989 Tiananmen Square protest. President Xi has found himself trying to balance between totally shutting down society with a severe lockdown to stem the spread of the new variant of the virus, or bend to civil society and loosen the restrictions while risking increased cases of the virus.

In response to pressure from the mass demonstrations President Xi Jinping folded and chose to relax Covid restrictions. In this case, the power of the people, won over the authoritarian dictates of the Chinese Communist Party leadership. Citizens in Western democracies often find ways to make their voices heard and change public policy. In China, such “luan” or chaos is not tolerated by Xi Jinping or the CCP leadership. It makes what happened this week all the more remarkable and brings into question the true strength of the Communist Party.

Xi Jinping, recently re-elected to a record third term as president in October, faces a domestic economy that is struggling. He is continuing to use a strong-armed interventionist approach against private sector businesses that is hurting business growth. The CCP has maintained power in the country mainly due to the expansion of the economy in recent decades. If the Party can’t produce good economic results, and the broad base of the population is suffering both economically and physically, the legitimacy of the CCP and its leadership could be called into question.

Analysts this week suggest that Xi Jinping and the top leadership recognize this possibility and view themselves as in a weakened position, despite Xi’s directly overseeing all important levers of power, including the military, judiciary, police, propaganda, and foreign policy establishments. Looking to history for lessons learned from the 1989 demonstrations, it appears Xi Jinping chose the pragmatic course.

There are differences between 1989 and today. The middle class is larger in China, their expectations are higher, and they are more connected to the outside world. Thirty-three years ago, students had little practical understanding of democratic practices, free market economics or advanced technologies common in the West. All that has changed. Xi may have taken the only action possible in the short-run to quell unrest. However, it may have opened the door to the eventual downfall of authoritarian rule in China.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.