Tiananmen – USA Gov Policy

Thirty-one years ago this week our world witnessed the painful birth of a inchoate student revolution in Tiananmen Square. It was brimming with hope, determination, and dreams of ill-defined civil liberties and pluralism. Its symbol was the Goddess of Liberty, with two arms lifted high holding the torch representing freedom. Reminiscent of the United States’ Statue of Liberty, the Chinese version and those behind it, instilled instant fear in Deng Xiaoping and the rest of the CCP leadership. They perceived the chaos it echoed an unacceptable threat to the Party’s legitimacy and its power base. The political mobilization that began with insurgent students demanding better conditions on college campuses and calls for ill-understood democracy, ended with millions joining from around the world to condemn Chinese coup-proofing. But, did the calls for freedom genuinely end in the country when Beijing sent in tanks and fired bullets into the crowd killing hundreds?

Although Beijing quickly returned to the strict order required to keep the CCP in power and the state apparatus intact, Deng Xiaoping’s regime may have planted the seed of freedom deep in the hearts of China’s sophomoric youth. Three decades later it looks almost mature enough to bloom in Hong Kong.

Authoritarian regimes, like that found in China, fare better when they are able to limit communications, deny access to the outside world, and exert strong central control over the population. China’s highly centralized government has proven repeatedly over its seven decades of resilient CCP rule that it is capable of brutally repressing its own people to achieve total political control. As long as the CCP provided economic prosperity the population remained politically inactive and accepted the dictates of the Party and a constitution with no limits on its executive authority.

In the early 2000’s China was experiencing fast-paced, double-digit, economic growth that moved the country from a grain importing nation to one that exported high technology products throughout the world. New wealth and a nascent middle class helped citizens overlook the repressive measures that were exploding in number. Economic growth slowed after 2010, but China’s 10-year economic plan still called for an impressive, if unachievable, 6.8% growth rate. The leadership of the CCP lost no time in planning strategically for its emergence on the world scene as a potential hegemon.

Since 1989 the youth of the Tiananmen Square generation entered the work force, the country received permanent status in the WTO, and China emerged as a major power. The Internet crossed the Chinese border and cell phone technology provided the citizenry instant access to a world uncontrolled by the CCP. Rising economic aspirations and exposure to outside influences also resulted in the extreme tightening of controls over society by a regime already under scrutiny for corruption, ill-conceived efforts to reform the economy, widespread pollution, and uneven growth.

levitra 20mg canada http://www.slovak-republic.org/citizenship/comment-page-3/ But, it should be remembered that these pills work in combination with sexual stimulation. Take a healthy diet This is the main thing you have to bear in mind when generic discount levitra http://www.slovak-republic.org/banska-bystrica/ buying a zipper pouch is the functioning of the zipper. Favorable condition to store this remedy is said to be 25 discount cialis milligrams to 100 milligrams. Similar to Malaysian ginseng, you can also make use of chiropractic. tadalafil 20mg generic

Last year when Beijing pushed Hong Kong’s government to pass the Fugitive Offenders amendment bill, residents grew concerned the CCP was trying to supersede the autonomy of local authorities. By June 2019, exactly 30 years after the demonstrations in Tiananmen Square, hundreds of thousands protested outside the Hong Kong Legislative Council Complex in a standoff with police. Although the bill was eventually withdrawn from consideration, the rift widened. Last fall the ongoing protests intensified with the shooting of an unarmed protester and two student deaths. Just a few weeks ago Beijing passed a national security bill that bypassed Hong Kong’s local legislative process and sparked new demonstrations and global protest. A whole generation of residents of Hong Kong, well-aware of the massacre in Tiananmen Square on the night of June 4, 1989, have lost trust in their government. It doesn’t bode well for any of the parties involved or Taiwan. Its president Tsai Ing-wen, and the rest of the island, are watching developments closely. If Beijing plans to succeed in its reunification goal with the Republic of China, it needs to reassess how it governs.

The lessons of Tiananmen Square are not lost on the population of Hong Kong or Taiwan. While both identify with the Chinese people and culture, they do not accept the lack of freedoms and repression offered by CCP rule. Perhaps like the periodical Cicada beetle, which is only found in the US, they are mature and ready to emerge this year? When the insect emerges from underground its grows wings and its shell hardens in less than 6 days. The call of the Cicada can be heard a mile away. And, its eyes can be red, white, or blue!

On June 4, 1989, I was in the Operations Center at the US Department of State working on the Secretary of State’s China Task Force when all hell broke loose in Beijing. The Secretary turned to ask me if we were witnessing the start of a civil war. My answer then was “No, it is too early, and they are not strong enough to stand up successfully to the CCP and the PLA.” Asked that same question in 2020 I would need to rethink my answer. The leadership in Beijing has a strategic choice to make this year as the world may be ready to hear the call of the “Cicada Rising” and hold the communist regime accountable.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government. Each Friday, she presents key updates on China.

Illustration: Pixabay

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.