The National Intelligence Council (NIC) has release an unclassified  report, “Global Tends 2025: A Transformed World” which, as the NIC puts it, offers “a fresh look at how global trends might develop over the next 15 years to influence world events.”

Rather than read the whole very long report, here’s an excerpt from a Strategy Page analysis of the report concerning demographic changes in China in 2025:

China’s “one child” policy (to halt population growth), and the unanticipated appearance of cheap sonograms (enabling parents to determine the gender of their child while there was still time for an abortion) has caused an imbalance in the gender ratio. There are now 115 boys for every 100 girls. Young men are having a problem finding wives. Wealthier urban males attract more women from the rural areas (where 70 percent of Chinese still live), leaving a lot of lonely, poor and angry young men in the countryside. The smaller generations means that the proportion of elderly (made wealthier and healthier by the booming economy) is skyrocketing, while the workforce is shrinking. Both these trends are bad, and will have negative social and economic impacts.

As the NIC points out, the reports is not meant to be an exercise in “prediction or crystal ball-gazing.”  But it does sound like a plausible scenario.  And a countryside full of “lonely, poor and angry young men” sounds particularly bad.

What a world…the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) is criticizing Taiwan’s democratically elected government for its recent, and very un-democratic, crackdown on recent protests by Taiwanese citizens.  The great irony is that the KMT run Taiwan government suppressed the freedoms of speech and assembly of its own people in an effort to appease a visiting official from Communist China, one of the world’s great human rights violators.    A very sad event.

From the FIDH statement:

According to the information received, since November 3rd, 2008, the city of Taipei has been heavily occupied by more than 7,000 police officers. The authorities have taken many drastic measures, including: confiscating and damaging private property, harassing and assaulting people who came too close to undefined or vaguely defined areas, clearing communal highway lanes with force, conducting random searches and arrests, and restricting the freedom of movement of citizens. These actions have been taken during Mr. CHEN’s visit, in the name of protecting security.

However, we fear these aggressions in fact aim at suppressing the right to freedom of expression of citizens. To supplement this violence, there are also unprecedented restrictions which clearly overpass the limits of ensuring security. For example, citizens have been restricted from displaying or carrying the national flag of Taiwan, forbidden to declare that “Taiwan is not part of China”, forbidden from carrying filming devices, and restricted from playing any music the authorities consider inappropriate.

These measures seem to be aimed at silencing political opinions rather than protecting security, and thus they blatantly violate the Constitution of Taiwan, notably Articles 11 and 14 which protect freedom of expression and international human rights standards. Consequently, FIDH requests that the National Police Agency and National Security Bureau, bound by the Constitution and the national legislation, should be held responsible for violating their legal obligations. The Judicial Yuan and Control Yuan should immediately conduct independent and impartial investigations into all allegations of human rights violations and hold all personnel in office accountable for neglecting their civil and legal obligations, in line with the Judicial Yuan’s recent statement that “it is very important to form an objective and solid review standard, and make the constitutional reviews more predictable and trust-worthy to people”. Those who perpetrated these violations, particularly in the National Police Agency and National Security Bureau, must be held accountable, in accordance with Article 24 of the Constitution of Taiwan, which stipulates that “Any public employee who, in violation of law, infringes upon the freedom or right of any person shall, in addition to being subject to disciplinary punishment in accordance with law, be liable to criminal and civil action. The victim may, in accordance with law, claim damages from the State for any injury sustained therefrom.”

I posted here about Taiwan’s recent crackdown on protests during a visit by a Communist Chinese official.  Now Freedom House is on the issue, urging the Taiwanese government to “create an independent commission to thoroughly investigate clashes between police and activists protesting Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin’s historic visit and recommend needed reforms.”

From a Nov. 20 Freedom House press release:

Hundreds of university students are currently staging a sit-in in Taipei’s Freedom Square and several other cities to protest the government’s handling of the incident. During Chen’s visit, police reportedly used heavy-handed tactics—including physical assault, arbitrary detention and destruction of property—to prevent Chen from seeing symbols of Taiwanese or Tibetan independence, as well as broader demonstrations against the Chinese regime. Demonstrators also employed violence against police, throwing rocks and petrol bombs outside Chen’s hotel on November 6.

The clashes reveal a need for police to undergo crowd control training that adheres to the standards used in other democracies. Likewise, demonstrators and political advocacy groups must recommit themselves to orderly protests that avoid violence under any circumstances.

The inquiry commission should examine controversial passages in Taiwan’s Assembly and Parade Law, such as restrictions on where people are allowed to demonstrate, and determine whether they need to be liberalized to protect citizens’ rights to freedom of expression and assembly. The commission should also investigate claims that police are selectively enforcing the law.

The visit by Chen, the most senior Chinese official to visit Taiwan since it split from China in 1949, and the recent arrests of several opposition party figures are raising concerns that that President Ma and his Kuomintang Party may rollback democratic freedoms.

Laugh out loud funny from The Onion News Network…Communist China’s version of Andy Rooney (as in Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes fame).  My favorite line, “If someone asked me what the biggest problem with our legal system is, I would say to them, ‘if you think our legal system has problems, you are a traitor to the People’s Republic of China.’”

Good stuff.

Thanks to Nicky Cheese for the link.

There is trouble in Taiwan…and naturally, the regime in Beijing is part of the mix.  Of course, Beijing is part of the mix in many troubled parts of the world, usually where thugs and chaos rule.  But in this case it is Taiwan, a young representative democracy that so obviously functions as an independent state except for the  significant fact that Communist China claims sovereignty over its territory and citizens.

On March 22, Taiwan held a presidential election. Ma Ying-Jeou of the Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, or KMT) defeated the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate. It was Taiwan’s second peaceful transfer of party power through democratic elections, which can generally be viewed as an excellent sign of a healthy and maturing democracy.  Unfortunately, a recent (and rare) visit to Taiwan by an official from the communist People’s Republic of China (PRC)  has resulted in President Ma and the KMT run Taiwan government acting to appease Beijing at the expense of the democratic values of free and open expression, freedom of assembly and the rule of law.

This should be seen as a significant step backwards by the new Taiwanese government in cross-Straight relations, and a threat to Taiwan’s hard won democracy.

Earlier this month,  China’s head Taiwan negotiator, Chen Yunlin of the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) traveled to Taiwan…the highest ranking Communist Chinese official to visit Taiwan in over a half-century.  The visit sparked large scale protests against Communist China by Taiwanese citizens.  In response the Ma administration sent in security forces to suppress the protests and ensure that the Communist official didn’t have to experience any uncomfortable pro-independence moments.

According to the China Post:

The most senior Communist Chinese official to visit Taiwan bid farewell to the island Friday, saying his historic trip was a success but that the rivals had a long road to travel toward better relations.

The official, Chen Yunlin, signed a landmark trade deal during his five-day trip, but his mission also sparked daily street protests that were often violent.

Before he left for the airport, Chen thanked the thousands of police who were deployed in the capital, Taipei, to protect him. In a possible dig at the protesters, Chen assured the Taiwanese that if they visit China, they will see “harmony everywhere.”

So just what did those thousands of police have to do to earn the gratitude of the representative from Beijing?  Here is a summary of a portion of the egregious behavior, from an e-mail from a member of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA).

I. Incident regarding the Suppression of Freedom of Speech During Chen’s visit to Taiwan, the Ma administration commanded over ten thousand police officers to keep protesters away from the places that Chen planned to visit. Protestors were making nonviolent demonstrations, demanding reparation from the Chinese government for the export of melamine-tainted dairy products to Taiwan and expressing opposition against China’s intention to take possession of Taiwan.

The police unconstitutionally prohibited protesters from accessing the restricted areas and destroyed protesters’ banners, signs, balloons, and any other materials bearing political statements. In addition, police officers stormed into a record store near Chen’s reception site and forced the owners to turn off a radio that was playing Taiwanese human right songs that might disgruntle Chen.

These actions manifest the Ma administration’s deplorable suppression of freedom of speech. Furthermore, the Ma Government violated people’s freedoms by drawing security lines to restrict the protesters from certain government-controlled areas, without providing sufficient explanation for the restrictions. In response to the protests, Ma simply explained to the Taiwanese media that “freedom of speech only exists outside of the security lines.”

II. Incident regarding the Violation of Due Process of Law During Chen’s visit in Taiwan, the Ma Government searched pedestrians and their vehicles on the streets without any warrants or reasonable suspicion. The purpose of the search was not to find weapons or drugs but to remove banners, signs, balloons, and other forms of political expression. Furthermore, the police also used brutal violence to expel the protesters. Such acts and conducts represent a serious violation of due process of law.

Other instances of blatant human rights violations included clearing out the international airport and the highway of cars, including those of the media; prohibiting people from waving national flags and from saying that “Taiwan is not a part of China;” taking away people who held DVs shooting near Yuan Shan area; and destroying balloons with “lack of conscience” written on them. The police have also removed banners in support of Tibet independence from motorcycles based on the unfounded premise that they violate the Assembly and Parade Law.

On November 7, FAPA released a statement from some nineteen Taiwanese-American organizations blasting the Ma administration’s tactics.  The statement reads in part:

The undersigned are deeply saddened by, concerned with and outraged at the unjustified actions taken by the Ma Ying-jeou administration to suppress mass protests during the visit of China’s ARATS Chairman Chen Yunlin to Taiwan.

We are saddened because the Ma administration, in order to embrace this Chinese Communist representative, has violated and stripped the human rights (particularly the right of freedom of speech) of those who wished to demonstrate their love for Taiwan through waving flags, playing Taiwanese songs and other peaceful ways and means.

We are concerned because the Ma administration, in order to protect this Chinese Communist representative, ordered 7,000 police and rendered Taiwan a “police state”, a phenomenon only seen in an authoritarian country.

We are outraged because democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law that were earned with blood and tears by our Taiwanese forebears have been trampled upon in recent days. Taiwan has seemed to revert to the days of Martial Law when there was no freedom of speech, no personal liberties, no freedom of association but only the confrontation between the police force and public.

The Ma administration knows that the majority of the Taiwanese people do not support a rapid pro-China policy. Yet his administration decided to go ahead with hosting the meeting between Chen and Taiwan’s SEF chief Chiang Pin-kung. This decision is to deliberately provoke the Taiwanese people, divide the Taiwanese society and attack Taiwan’s fragile and hard-fought democracy. We strongly condemn the KMT government’s China policies and protest the government for denying Taiwan’s sovereignty and ignoring Taiwan’s human rights, freedom and democracy.

Whole statement available here.

Stay tuned.

In the October 30 Wall Street Journal Asia, the Cato Institute’s Ted Galen Carpenter writes:

Officials in Washington and Beijing seemed relieved when Taiwan’s moderate Kuomintang took control of the legislature earlier this year and Ma Ying-jeou was elected president. But that optimism is fading fast as China’s lack of meaningful concessions has undermined Mr. Ma’s political position. It’s becoming clear that the Taiwan side has done all it can so far. The next steps will depend on Beijing.

Don’t hold your breath.  Really, what motivation does China have to concede to Taiwan anything “meaningful” at all?   Most all of the West–and certainly the United States specifically– and the United Nations as a body,  routinely kowtows to Beijing’s ludicrous claim over Taiwan and stands mutely by while China marginalizes Taiwan’s efforts at international recognition.  Carpenter notes that China has been willing to play along around the edges, such as the establishment of direct air links between Taiwan and Mainland China.  But what about the big things…like Beijing’s threats of annihilation against Taiwan?

Carpenter continues:

So it’s important that Mr. Ma be able to show voters he’s not simply making an endless series of one-sided concessions. Yet Beijing hasn’t been willing to play ball so far. Despite repeated calls in Taiwan for Beijing to remove the more than 1,200 missiles aimed at the island, Chinese leaders show no inclination to reduce that number. Nor has Beijing shown any willingness to allow Taiwan to become a member of the World Health Organization or other international bodies. That unresponsiveness plays into the hands of DPP hardliners who argue Taiwan has gained little from Mr. Ma’s conciliatory efforts.

On his blog, Tom Palmer from the Cato Institute points to an essay from the China Daily on the difficulty of being gay in China.  From the essay:

Last November, government agencies published a report that put the number of gay men in China who are “of a sexually active age” at 5-10 million. Scientists say this is the low end of the estimate. They figure that there are around 30-40 million homosexual men and women in total.

In 1997, China’s Criminal Law decriminalized sodomy. In 2001, homosexuality was removed from the list of mental disorders by health authorities.

But the changing law does not necessarily change public perception. Most gay people interviewed for this story agree that the single biggest source of pressure and stigma comes from their own families. “My employer doesn’t care about my private life, and the neighbourhood grandma is not nosy any more. But there’s no way I can get past my own mum and dad,” said Lu Youni, a Guangzhou high school teacher.

While a sypathetic piece, it does not quite tell the whole story.  As Palmer notes on his blog, “It’s discreetly not mentioned, but the situation is infinitely preferable to the public executions to which gay people were sentenced in the old days. What’s missing from an otherwise interesting story is any explanation of why things have been changing in China.”  Palmer then recounts a story:

My friend Zhou Xiao (those of us who have difficulty pronouncing Chinese names call her “Kate”) told me in Shanghai in 1997 that she was convinced that “China will never go communist again.” I asked her why she was so sure and she announced that she (and her very patient husband) had already been in Shanghai for a week doing field research on on changing public attitudes in China and they had found that “Shanghai is just full of gay bars. And when the gay bars come in, they’re never going back to socialism!” In her discussions with customers, she said that she asked what had accounted for the change (that was before the laws were amended to eliminate criminal penalites for sexual contact among members of the same gender) and she said that the response was that the big step had been privatization of housing. Under socialism, housing was rationed and allocated by the state. Married couples were eligible to be allocated flats; unmarried people were not. So gay people (who had not been forced into phony marriages) had to live with their parents or in worker dormitories and couldn’t create households together. When housing was privatized, however, “landlords didn’t care if you were purple and had horns, if you were willing to pay.” A little bit of the profit motive swept away a great deal of irrationality, cruelty, and oppression.

A fairly cheery story of the property rights necessary for China to at least partially un-shackle its economy from the misery of communism leading in turn to more personal freedom.

Hat tip to Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy for pointing the way to Palmer’s ineresting post.

“Subverting Freedom in Macau” from today’s Wall Street Journal Asia :

It’s been five years since pro-Beijing elements in Hong Kong tried — and failed — to curtail free speech in the former British colony. Now Macau Chief Executive Edmund Ho says it’s his “sacred duty” to try to do the same thing in his territory. The legislation he’s proposing represents the most serious threat to freedoms since Macau’s 1999 handover from Portugal to China.

Mr. Ho’s government proposed last week to enact enabling legislation on Article 23 of the territory’s miniconstitution, the Basic Law. As with Hong Kong’s Basic Law, Article 23 was inserted into the law by Beijing after the 1989 Tiananmen Square pro-democracy uprising. It says Macau’s government “shall enact laws, on its own, to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People’s Government, or theft of state secrets.”

Under Mr. Ho’s proposed national security legislation, offenders could be jailed for up to 30 years for such crimes. Trials on some offenses would not be public. At a press conference last week, Mr. Ho said “chanting a few slogans, writing a few articles criticizing the central government or the Macau government . . . won’t be regulated by this proposed law.” But Beijing uses such laws to quell dissent and there’s no guarantee that Macau would not do the same.

In addition, the proposed law would remove protection for whistleblowers exposing government corruption — a problem in a territory dominated by the gambling industry and with an entrenched mafia and a self-censoring press. Hong Kongers have questioned whether they would be subject to the law if they visited Macau.

Read the whole thing here.

My Independence Institute colleague, Dave Kopel, has published a new paper concerning Taiwan’s trade policies with China and Taiwanese sovereignty. Here is David’s post on the paper from the excellent legal blog, The Volokh Conspiracy:

Last Friday, I presented a paper at a symposium at the University of Chicago’s International House. The paper was part of a symposium on “Taiwan’s New Approach: Opportunities and Challenges for President Ma Ying-jeou’s Government.” The paper is titled Poisoned Milk and the Poisoning of Democracy: Some Cautions about China Trade and Taiwan Sovereignty. It argues that Taiwan should make national security the foremost consideration in trade policy with China. This would support liberalization of Chinese tourism and Chinese students being allowed to study in Taiwan, the better to win the hearts and minds of the Chinese people. The paper suggests that–for purposes of human rights, and to sow the seeds for long-term political reform in China–new Taiwanese foreign direct investment in China be required to go to businesses which allow Chinese workers to elect a workers council. Taiwan should energetically develop its trade with India, as an alternative to China; should further restrict Chinese food imports; and should get rid of trade negotiators who have business interests in China. Allowing economic integration with China without regard for national security could, the paper suggests, lead to the destruction Taiwan’s sovereignty, independence, and freedom.

British writer Peter Hitchens has a long and compelling firsthand account in the Daily Mail (a British newspaper) of what Hitchens refers to as China’s “new slave empire” in Africa:

These poor, hopeless, angry people exist by grubbing for scraps of cobalt and copper ore in the filth and dust of abandoned copper mines in Congo, sinking perilous 80ft shafts by hand, washing their finds in cholera-infected streams full of human filth, then pushing enormous two-hundredweight loads uphill on ancient bicycles to the nearby town of Likasi where middlemen buy them to sell on, mainly to Chinese businessmen hungry for these vital metals.

To see them, as they plod miserably past, is to be reminded of pictures of unemployed miners in Thirties Britain, stumbling home in the drizzle with sacks of coal scraps gleaned from spoil heaps.

Except that here the unsparing heat makes the labour five times as hard, and the conditions of work and life are worse by far than any known in England since the 18th Century.

Many perish as their primitive mines collapse on them, or are horribly injured without hope of medical treatment. Many are little more than children. On a good day they may earn $3, which just supports a meagre existence in diseased, malarial slums.

We had been earlier to this awful pit, which looked like a penal colony in an ancient slave empire.

Defeated, bowed figures toiled endlessly in dozens of hand-dug pits. Their faces, when visible, were blank and without hope.

We had been turned away by a fat, corrupt policeman who pretended our papers weren’t in order, but who was really taking instructions from a dead-eyed, one-eared gangmaster who sat next to him.

By the time we returned with more official permits, the gangmasters had readied the ambush.

The diggers feared – and their evil, sinister bosses had worked hard on that fear – that if people like me publicised their filthy way of life, then the mine might be closed and the $3 a day might be taken away.

I can give you no better explanation in miniature of the wicked thing that I believe is now happening in Africa.

Out of desperation, much of the continent is selling itself into a new era of corruption and virtual slavery as China seeks to buy up all the metals, minerals and oil she can lay her hands on: copper for electric and telephone cables, cobalt for mobile phones and jet engines – the basic raw materials of modern life.

It is no accident that in many parts of the world where thuggery and misery rule,  Beijing can be found hard at work keeping things that way.

As an interesting aside, here is Peter’s brother Christopher Hitchens on Beijing’s numerous client regimes and captive nations.

« go back — keep looking »

Recently Written

• Downzoning northwest Denver is contrary to sustainable development goals
• Why Denver’s new zoning code should allow accessory dwelling units (granny flats)
• More Communist Paranoia From Beijing
• How President Obama can show support for Taiwan
• Taiwan supporters in U.S. Congress alive and kicking
• Communist Chinese Authoritarianism at its Paranoid Worst.
• Is The U.S. Postal Service Practicing Beijing Appeasment?
• Che and Mao, Icons for the Clueless
• Beijing Pouts Over Sarkozy Meeting With Dalai Lama
• More Chinese Influence in Africa

Categories

• Africa
• Burma
• China
• Colorado
• Darfur
• Denver
• Denver zoning code
• Espionage
• Ethiopia
• Falun Gong
• Genocide
• Inner Mongolia
• milestones
• Mount Everest
• Mugabe
• Nepal
• Olympics
• Personal Freedom
• Taiwan
• Tibet
• Uighers
• Uncategorized
• Zimbabwe

Archives

• August 2009
• February 2009
• December 2008
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008

Blogroll

• Dave Kopel
• David Harsanyi
• Dream for Darfur
• Independence Institute
• Sam Adams Alliance
• SudanReeves
• The Cauldron

Admin

• Register
• Log in
• Wordpress
• XHTML

Search