Foreign diplomatic missions in Hong Kong mourn Tiananmen crackdown with social media posts
The US, Canadian, and Australian consulates general shared photos of candles on Facebook on Wednesday.
In a caption accompanying the photo, the Australian mission wrote: 'On this day, we join communities around the world to remember the loss of life at Tiananmen Square on 4 June 1989.'
It added: 'Australia remains committed to protecting and supporting human rights – including freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom of political participation.'
The Canadian consulate wrote: 'We won't forget #June4,1989: the tragic date when peaceful demonstrators were violently suppressed in and around Beijing's #TiananmenSquare. Canada joins Hong Kong and the international community in solemn remembrance.'
The US mission also shared a statement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, saying that 'the world will never forget' the crackdown, although Beijing 'actively tries to censor the facts.'
Meanwhile, the UK consulate general posted a black-and-white photo showing an empty chair, the Roman numerals 'VIIV' – an apparent reference to June 4, the date of the 1989 crackdown, and a Chinese phrase: 'Don't want to remember; don't dare to forget.'
The phrase is a slogan chanted during Hong Kong's annual Tiananmen candlelight vigils before they were banned in 2020.
Vigils banned
The Tiananmen crackdown occurred on June 4, 1989, ending months of student-led demonstrations in China. It is estimated that hundreds, perhaps thousands, died when the People's Liberation Army cracked down on protesters in Beijing.
Hong Kong used to be the only place on Chinese soil – besides Macau – where commemoration of the crackdown could be held in public.
Tens of thousands of residents gathered annually in Victoria Park in Causeway Bay for candlelight vigils on June 4 every year to mourn the victims.
But authorities banned the Tiananmen vigil gathering at Victoria Park for the first time in 2020, citing Covid-19 restrictions, and imposed the ban again in 2021, nearly a year after a national security law imposed by Beijing came into effect.
The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, which organised the vigils, disbanded in September 2021 after several of its members were arrested.
With public commemoration of the crackdown becoming rare, some foreign consulates in the city continue to remember the event openly.
For the third year, a days-long patriotic food carnival organised by pro-Beijing groups is being held in Victoria Park on the crackdown anniversary day.
A heavy police presence can be spotted patrolling the park, the former site of the candelight vigils, on Wednesday.
Detained barrister-activist Chow Hang-tung, formerly vice chairperson of the Alliance, said in a social media post on Sunday that she would launch a 36-hour hunger strike in prison to mark the 36th anniversary of the Tiananmen crackdown.
Chow, two former Alliance chairpersons, and the Alliance itself stand accused of subversion under the Beijing-imposed national security law. They face life behind bars if convicted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AllAfrica
29 minutes ago
- AllAfrica
China's weapons exports shifting global balance of power
Chinese weapons are starting to show up in the world's biggest conflict zones, underscoring Beijing's technological advancement and investment in this area. In the 1990s and 2000s, Chinese weapons systems and military equipment were seen as being little more than imitations of old Russian or even Soviet systems. China was largely reliant on exports from Moscow and lacked the capacity to create its own systems. However, with China's recent economic development and technological growth, state-run Chinese firms are now increasingly significant military players. Reports suggest that China now has significantly more advanced weapons systems. An example of this is a J-20 fighter flying seemingly undetected through Tsushima Strait in June 2025, in range of US, Japanese and South Korean radar systems. As conflicts, including the war in Ukraine, are increasingly dominated by drone warfare, China's drone technology has become more sophisticated. It has also made advances in developing hypersonic missiles and stealth technology. China's recent moves in the Pacific show off its military power, most recently its unannounced naval exercises off the coast of Australia. The exercise caused significant disruption to flights in the Tasman Sea. And China's fleet sailed close to sensitive military sites in Australia, including the Amberley airbase, which hosts the US's B-2 stealth bomber fleet. This also shows how bold China has become, as well as illustrating how sensitive assets are in striking range of China's forces. Chinese weapons systems were in action in the Indo-Pakistani conflict in June. Pakistan used several Chinese-made J-10C fighters to shoot down several Indian jets, most notably the French-made Rafale fighter. The Asian conflict sparked interest in the Chinese jet, with Egypt and Nigeria now showing interest in buying the J-10. A year earlier at the Zhuhai airshow in China, several Middle Eastern nations, including the UAE, made significant purchases of Chinese systems, following up earlier purchases of Chinese drones and fighter jets. China's J-20 jets in action. Chinese military companies now may have also found another potential client – Iran. Several Iranian military officials were recently photographed in the cockpit of a J-10 at the Zhuhai airshow. The history of why China has invested significantly in military hardware is significant. Chinese military weaknesses were highlighted during the Gulf War and the third Taiwan Strait crisis in 1996. This saw China conduct missile tests in the Taiwan Strait as a signal to Taipei, which was seen as moving towards independence. Washington deployed two carrier groups in response, consisting of two aircraft carriers and a large number of escorts. These significantly outclassed China's ships, with more firepower and more advanced technology. At that time, Beijing was dependent on Soviet-made equipment. Its limitations were highlighted by the Chinese navy's inability to detect US submarines in the Taiwan Strait. The need to upgrade its military led to a continuous 10% increase in the Chinese defence budget, as well as widespread military reforms. These occurred under Jiang Zemin, chairman of the Central Military Commission (the supreme military body for the Chinese Communist Party) from 1989 to 2004, and president of China from 1993 to 2003. These changes laid the foundations for China's modernised military systems today. China's military modernisation has also been representative of its wider investment in technology. With some Chinese technology, such as AI chatbot DeepSeek, now challenging Western domination. Scholars have long argued that economic power leads to greater military power and a greater global role. With the conflicts in Ukraine, South Asia, and the Middle East showing the limitations of more established European and Russian hardware, there are growing opportunities for Chinese weapons technology. It's also likely that Chinese military systems will find customers among countries that are not on Donald Trump's list of favored nations, such as Iran. Should Iran be able to equip itself with Chinese systems, it will be better placed to go head-to-head with Israel. All of these military advancements have given Beijing greater confidence while making the strategic position of the US and its allies in Asia more precarious. While the J-20 demonstrated the vulnerability of the First Island Chain, (a string of strategically important islands in east Asia) the latest innovation, the J-36, could reshape aerial warfare in the region. Integrated with AI and linked with drone swarms, the system has the potential to serve as a flying server, creating an integrated system not unlike the one recently used by Pakistan, but with even more advanced technologies. All of these military maneuvers show how China is becoming a significant player in global conflicts, and how this may give it more strength to challenge the current world order. Tom Harper is lecturer in international relations, University of East London This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
AllAfrica
4 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Just cause to question and fear the corporation
Home to almost 70 percent of Fortune 500 companies, Delaware's reputation as America's 'corporate capital' has faced challenges in recent years. Tesla's and SpaceX's high-profile exits to Texas in 2024 highlighted other cracks in Delaware's seamless relationship with large corporations, compounded by other states jockeying to attract businesses. Delaware's government has launched a legislative charm offensive in response, passing several amendments in March 2025, which have eased restrictions on insider deals and reinforced the state's commitments to low taxes and a business-friendly legal framework. Corporations can be created in minutes almost anywhere, yet all share a core identity as legal entities with rights and responsibilities. Over time, they have replaced religious institutions and political parties as the most powerful actors in society, largely shaping what we consume, how we work, and influencing behavior and social norms. Their modern form traces back to 17th-century charters, with roots in Roman law. Though often tools of the state, global corporations have proven capable of operating across borders and legal systems, developing unprecedented sovereignty and power. The benefits of corporations, including lower prices from scale, capital-driven innovation and efficiency, and global reach, have been undermined by the relentless accumulation of financial assets, particularly in the West. Short-term gains often supersede long-term value and sustainability, and despite stronger regulation on paper, modern corporations operate with greater independence from the state and increasingly avoid public accountability. The basic model behind them remains intact, with core legal principles like limited liability and separate legal personality, stemming from early corporate charters from the 1600s and fully developed by the 1800s, still forming the corporate foundation despite enormous growth in their scale and influence. Over the years, calls for democratic renewal and institutional imagination have been mounting, pointing to a long-overdue rethinking of corporate power. Before modern corporations, societies around the world developed institutions to pool capital and dilute risk for trade, construction, and investment. In the Roman Republic, societas publicanorum had transferable shares ( partes ), professional managers, and central offices, and bid on state contracts for tax collection and infrastructure. However, Roman law allowed any partner to dissolve the business at will, limiting their longevity, and these types of partnerships faded under the empire's centralized bureaucracy. After 313 CE, following the Edict of Milan, which legalized Christianity, the Catholic Church gained legal standing that helped it become one of Europe's first enduring corporate-like entities. By the eighth century, European monarchs began issuing charters that bestowed privileges to monasteries, universities, towns, and tax collection, while guilds of merchants and artisans also emerged in the 11th century. This century also saw the emergence of the commenda in Italy, which allowed passive investors to fund merchant voyages for a share of the profits, an early form of limited liability that spread across Europe. Family banking dynasties from Florence emerged in the 14th and 15th centuries, building pan-European financial networks and eventually expanding to other industries like mining and manufacturing. Similar models developed globally. The commenda is believed to be inspired by Islamic qirad partnerships that began in the sixth century, where one party provided the capital and the other conducted trade. Beginning in the 1600s, large family firms in China thrived with imperial support. Maritime guilds thrived in Southeast Asian port cities like Majapahit and Srivijaya. Still, it was in Europe, where Roman and Canon Law fused, that legal innovation evolved most dramatically and took on the modern corporate form by the 17th century. Before the rise of modern corporations, most businesses were family-run shops, temporary partnerships, or informal arrangements that lacked legal separation from their owners. What earlier institutions lacked was the five features defining the modern corporation; representation allowing designated agents to act on behalf of the firm without binding investors; entity-shielding protecting corporate assets from the debts of investors; capital lock-in preventing investors from pulling funds or forcing liquidation; transferable shares letting investors exit without disrupting operations; and limited liability ensuring investors aren't personally responsible for corporate debts. The most foundational corporate characteristic is a legal personality, the ability to exist separately from its owners, with its own rights and responsibilities. From the Latin corpus ('body'), this concept lends context to former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's controversial 2011 remark that 'corporations are people.' These features enable corporations to attract capital, own property, sign contracts, and avoid dissolution with membership changes. They vary widely from public to private, with tradable or restricted shares, and can be state-owned, profit-driven, or mission-based. But nearly all corporations share these core traits, which have been used by some to build the most flexible, powerful, and enduring institutions ever created. The Dutch East India Company (VOC), founded in 1602, is widely considered the first modern multinational corporation. Though joint-stock ventures had existed earlier (mostly as short-term partnerships for single voyages), the VOC stood apart by introducing permanent capital, tradable shares, and a form of limited liability, attracting strong investment. As maritime trade and colonialism expanded over the previous century, long-term capital was increasingly required for risky, lucrative ventures in spices, textiles, and tea. The VOC met this demand by locking in investment, limiting shareholder exposure, and providing an orderly way to exit. Backed by the Dutch state, it merged competing firms into a single entity with centralized management, enabling it to scale up with unprecedented freedom. Dutch political institutions also played a role in the VOC's power. As a new republic, the Netherlands offered investors protection from royal interference. Unlike other European countries where royal families funded and closely monitored colonial expeditions, the VOC operated with more autonomy. It received a perpetual charter and became the first company listed on a stock exchange, and was empowered to sign treaties, raise armies, and wage war, all while shielding shareholders from personal accountability. Despite collapsing in 1799 due to debt and corruption, it pioneered a corporate form unlike anything before. Two years before the VOC's founding, its counterpart, the English East India Company (EIC), was formed in 1600. The EIC didn't obtain permanent capital until 1657 and was slower to adopt liquidity. But the English Civil War curbed royal power after 1657, allowing it to evolve in ways that mirrored the VOC. The Bank of England, founded as a corporation in 1694, helped stabilize credit lines and made it easier for the EIC and other corporations to raise capital. The EIC eventually came to colonize and rule large parts of India, establishing a civil service and even clashing militarily with the VOC. Yet its power drew intense scrutiny. Following the Bengal Famine of 1770, the English parliament passed the Regulating Act of 1773 and Pitt's India Act of 1784, curbing the EIC's powers. The company was finally dissolved in 1874. 'In 1857, the Indians rose in revolt against high-handed and oppressive Company rule… The Company lost all its administrative powers following the Government of India Act of 1858, and its Indian possessions and armed forces were taken over by the Crown. … The East India Company itself was formally dissolved by Act of Parliament in 1874,' according to the UK Parliament website. Though the VOC's model was emulated by the EIC and influenced commercial ventures elsewhere in Europe, such corporations remained a form of special incorporation granted by state charter, not open to anyone. This exclusivity began to loosen over time, but the South Sea Bubble crash of 1720, seen as the first major financial crash, triggered fears of economic instability and unchecked corporate power. In response, governments reimposed strict controls, requiring corporations to obtain specific approval and follow stringent guidelines. Corporations proved essential during Britain's industrial revolution, which began in the late 1700s. To support economic growth, parliament introduced reforms: the Joint Stock Companies Regulation and Registration Act of 1844 allowed businesses to register without special legislation, while the Limited Liability Act of 1855 extended legal protections to shareholders. These reforms, combined with Britain's access to capital markets and imperial power, kick-started rapid corporate expansion in Europe. Arriving late to maritime trade, the Dutch and English drove corporate innovation to keep up with other European powers. Politicians supported corporate growth, benefiting from lucrative shares in the monopolies they helped create. But the VOC and EIC demonstrated the promise and peril of corporations. They could generate wealth and wield power beyond what states alone could achieve, but they also bred corruption and posed political threats. European leaders, therefore, aimed to harness the benefits of corporations while limiting their power by closely tying them to government control. Early British joint-stock companies like the Virginia Company planted the first corporate seeds in North America in the early 17th century. But while European models like the VOC and EIC inspired early colonial enterprises, the corporate form developed more slowly in the US after independence, in both scale and structure. Shaped by a deep-rooted 'distrust' of monopolies and state-chartered privilege, and wary of corporations as instruments of elite power and financial instability, many Americans didn't trust companies that had special deals with the government. Instead, they preferred smaller, more personal business models like family-run shops, partnerships between a few people, or joint-stock ventures where people pooled money but didn't have the legal structure of modern corporations that offered them protections. The early US enterprises also lacked strong, centralized authority and consistent legal protections, especially for property and contracts, and many investors in states like Florida, Texas, and California avoided corporate structures until they were included in the U.S. Constitution. Yet this decentralized system ultimately gave corporations room to grow. Without strong federal control, states competed to attract businesses by loosening incorporation requirements. New York led with the first general incorporation law for manufacturers in 1811, with other states soon following and expanding the scope of the law. The vast, unexploited North American landmass and push for industrialization made the corporate structure increasingly attractive, further aided by America's quicker and widespread adoption of limited liability and lighter state oversight compared to Europe. While state legislatures tried to regulate corporations with rules on capitalization, voting rights, and director terms, these measures proved mostly ineffective. Corporations amassed enormous influence, with 'company towns' illustrating their growing control over local economies and governance. Corporate imperialism returned under an American banner, with the United Fruit Company, which controlled enormous banana plantations in Central America and used its political influence to overthrow governments. These towns still exist in some shape or form today. 'The original coal and textile towns in America are now largely ghostly, but places like Hershey and Corning, New York, which were invigorated by the Corning glass company, are still going strong. Plus, as the LA Times writes, businesses such as Google and Facebook today are providing housing, amenities, and transportation for their workers—meaning that while we think of company towns in sepia tones, they're also in digital blue,' states Smithsonian magazine. In 'The Visible Hand', Alfred D Chandler Jr suggests that the dominance of American corporations by the 20th century was due to their managerial hierarchies rather than entrepreneurs, which provided them with stability, coordination, and centralized planning. This is partly supported in 'The Company: A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea', which argues that robber barons were replaced by 'the faceless manager' and the multidivisional firm. By the 1930s, legal scholar Adolf A. Berle and economist Gardiner C Means, whose work shaped modern corporate governance theory, warned that dispersed shareholders had lost control to entrenched managers and called for reforms in corporate oversight. The 1919 Dodge v. Ford case had already enshrined shareholder primacy in US law, declaring that directors must prioritize shareholder profits. But rather than democratizing ownership, the rise of institutional investors, like pension and mutual funds, and other financial giants, further concentrated power among select shareholders. By the end of the 20th century, globalization offered American corporations, as well as others, a platform to dominate beyond natural borders. The American corporate model became the ruling template in a worldwide ecosystem, largely controlled by shareholder interests and executive compensation tied to quarterly earnings pressures. Over time, corporations have become the dominant business entities. Despite only representing 18% of U.S. businesses, corporations generate nearly 82% of all revenues. Around 20,000 large corporations employ as many people as the 31.7 million small businesses, according to the 2024 data provided by payment processor company Clearly Payments. Many of them now function as monopolies or organized cartels. In the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the Supreme Court affirmed that corporations have First Amendment rights, including the right to 'use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech.' Borderless by design, major corporations drive a race to the bottom for cheap international labor and pass sustainability costs onto consumers. Countries often lack the strength to rein them in, and where they can, corporations simply exploit tax havens and flexible jurisdictions. As economist Lynn A Stout observed, outdated yet profitable business practices like shareholder primacy are hard to shake. Accountability and sustainability appear largely ignored, with corporations long prioritizing profit over public safety. Asbestos manufacturers suppressed evidence of its deadly health effects to keep selling their products. Tobacco firms knowingly misled the public about cancer risks for decades . Purdue Pharma, owned by the Sackler family, used its LLC status and shell corporations to dodge accountability for the opioid crisis. According to an Associated Press investigation, 'the Sacklers' wealth is shielded in a web of companies and trusts, some registered in offshore tax havens far from Purdue's Connecticut headquarters,' states a 2019 article by CBS News. Calls for corporate responsibility have grown as the power of corporations has increased. The corporate social responsibility movement began with philanthropy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and resurged in the 1970s. Beginning in the mid-2000s, ESG and stakeholder activism sought to revive this initiative, but became politicized and have waned, even as corporate influence continues to grow. As 'universal owners' of the economy, institutional investors like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street control vast shares and command corporate influence. While it was hoped their broad holdings would make them stewards of the economy, short-term thinking and weak oversight continue to limit meaningful action like prioritizing long-term sustainability, fair labor practices, and avoiding hoarding wealth. Corporations are wielding new tools of dominance through AI and digital technologies. 'Companies such as Walmart, Tyson Foods, Koch Industries, Maersk, Siemens, and Unilever are using AI tools to swiftly find and engage with alternative suppliers during unexpected disruptions. They are also employing AI tools to pre-qualify suppliers ahead of time. These AI tools provide buyers with enhanced information that allows them to beat their competitors in securing alternate sources of supplies,' points out a Harvard Business Review 2023 article. They can also deflect accountability through PR campaigns, obscure controversies through complex supply chains and legal structures, and offload responsibility to subsidiaries, contractors, or consumers. Combined with the growing use of private military and security contractors, some modern corporations operating in unstable or contested regions are regaining a degree of coercive power reminiscent of the colonial-era trading giants. The core problem is that while we retain some voice in the political system, that influence doesn't extend to massive corporate structures. 'Voting with our wallets' offers little power when essential services are dominated by a handful of interconnected firms. While the corporate model dominates, alternatives continue to evolve. In early 20th-century China, corporate law was weakly enforced, and corporations were uncommon. Today, China exerts control over both state-owned and private corporations, embedding Chinese Communist Party officials into corporate governance. This hybrid model places corporate activity under tighter oversight, supported in part by nationwide social credit scores for all companies. President Teddy Roosevelt promoted trust-busting as the solution to corporate abuse by big business, but as economist Lawrence Mitchell notes, the prior era of fierce competition among smaller companies was also disastrous. He identified the real problem of states competing for corporate charters in a 'race to the bottom,' a danger that Justice Louis Brandeis also noted in 1933. Roosevelt even acknowledged in 1902 that only the federal government could properly regulate interstate corporations, which Mitchell supports. So, how should governments regulate monopolies? Some countries have taken a more open approach to consolidation. The German government, for example, legalized collusion and cartel formation to control prices and output in ways that serve national interests, actively encouraging the attempted merger of Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank since 2019. Cooperatives offer another path. The first successful cooperative, the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers, was founded in 1844 in the UK, championing democratic control, open membership, and profit-sharing. In Spain, the Mondragon Corporation, a federation of worker-owned cooperatives founded in 1956, has become the 'leading business project in the Basque Country and one of the largest corporations in Spain.' Rather than lay off workers, Mondragon often reallocates them across its network. New reformist approaches are also emerging in Europe. France's 2019 PACTE Act allows companies to define a social purpose beyond profit, embedding missions into corporate charters and expanding employee influence in mergers and executive oversight. Economist Mariana Mazzucato has promoted this mission-driven model as part of her vision for innovation-led governance. In the US, Delaware's recent legislative push is part of a broader effort challenging shareholder primacy, notably since the 2019 Business Roundtable, where top CEOs pledged to serve all stakeholders. Delaware and other American states already allow businesses to register as benefit corporations (B-corps), balancing profits with goals like environmental protection or community development. Existing corporations can convert by amending their founding documents. CHS Inc., a major agricultural cooperative ranked 115th on the Forbes 500 list in 2025, meanwhile, demonstrates how cooperative principles still have traction in the country. It has emerged as one of the 'largest farmer-owned cooperatives in the world.' Digital finance is also leading to experimentation in how businesses are owned and operated. Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), for example, are blockchain-based communities with decentralized governance that make decisions by vote. Aiming for transparency and shared control, they face clear hurdles. Unclear legal status has slowed adoption, while security flaws, including a major 2016 breach, have seen millions stolen due to a code exploit. Governance challenges include low participation, power centralization, and slow decision-making. 'In some high-profile DAOs, the majority of governance tokens are often held by the founders and early investors, which can skew decision outcomes in favor of their interests rather than the broader community,' states a blog by Colony, a platform providing a framework for DAOs. Not all innovation prioritizes the public good. The 'Network State' concept, coined by tech entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan, envisions venture-backed private cities, colonies, and zones across the US, Latin America, Africa, and beyond. These digital-first enclaves aim for diplomatic recognition and eventual sovereignty through special economic zones, framing private microstates as expressions of libertarian freedom. Efforts to reduce shareholder power can also backfire by merely concentrating power in the hands of corporate managers rather than all stakeholders. Elon Musk is a clear example; by retaining large ownership stakes, employing dual-class shares, and keeping firms like X, Tesla, and SpaceX private or under holding structures, he has shielded himself from shareholder influence while consolidating control. The planned incorporation of Starbase, Texas, a township effectively governed by SpaceX, demonstrates how this management style can dovetail with Network State ambitions. Born in the Dutch Republic, matured in England, and transformed by the United States, the march of the modern corporation has proven remarkably resilient over the centuries. Hudson's Bay Company, founded in 1670 as an English trading giant like the EIC, once controlled vast swaths of North America and now exists as a retail chain. Corporate power in general, however, continues to expand. After early overreach by the VOC and EIC prompted containment efforts, corporations have resurged through globalization, financialization, and advances in technology. Short-term profit maximization is seen as natural, with structures geared away from wider stakeholder responsibility. Many firms resist direct governance to escape the negative optics of being seen as too powerful, which would bring more scrutiny and accountability. Yet some corporations have grown so large that they have become pillars of modern society and carry significant responsibility, even if they do not openly acknowledge it. Without altering their growing influence, the future will be shaped less by democratic will through established channels and more by concentrated, private authority. John P Ruehl is an Australian-American journalist living in Washington, DC, and a world affairs correspondent for the Independent Media Institute. He is a contributor to several foreign affairs publications, and his book, 'Budget Superpower: How Russia Challenges the West With an Economy Smaller Than Texas', was published in December 2022. This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute, and is republished with kind permission.
AllAfrica
7 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Court gives Sara Duterte a new lease on political life
MANILA – Sara Duterte, the feisty Philippine vice president and arch-rival of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, has gotten a new lease on political life after the Senate voted not to proceed with an impeachment trial against her. In February, Duterte became the first Philippine vice president to be impeached for charges of violating the constitution, massive corruption and of allegedly plotting to assassinate Marcos and his wife. Shortly thereafter, her father – ex-strongman Rodrigo Duterte, initially seen as untouchable – was arrested and swiftly flown to the Hague to face trial for 'crimes against humanity' for the thousands of deaths in his brutal war on drugs campaign while serving as president from 2016-2022. Marcos has tried to distance himself from the troubles of the Duterte family, but pundits here believe that the legislative victory for Sara Duterte – albeit controversial – could cement her family's political dynasty at the national level. New elections are due in May 2028, where Sara Duterte is expected to vie for the presidency. By law, Marcos is limited to one six-year term. The Supreme Court, a coequal branch of the government, struck down the impeachment complaint but did not absolve Sara Duterte of the complaints lodged against her. It said that the case could be refiled next year, but few believe it will go ahead after the top court's ruling. On Wednesday, 19 senators voted to archive the impeachment, four wanted it to proceed, while one abstained. Political and security analyst Chester Cabalza, head of the International Development and Security Cooperation think-tank, said that the vote meant that many still see the Duterte family as power brokers. 'The Dutertes have a stronghold in the judiciary and the upper chamber of the legislative branch,' Cabalza told Asia Times on Thursday (August 7). 'While the country is politically polarized, the Dutertes have had a share of why politicians are hedging with them.' The Senate's archiving of the motion means that 'Sara remains an undisputed candidate for the 2028 presidential election,' he said. 'And her probable win is also China's preferential pivot and return to power,' in the Philippines, Cabalza added. He was referring to China's unprecedented access to the inner sanctum of Philippine politics during the term of Rodrigo Duterte, who had crossed swords with long-time defense ally the United States in favor of China. He embraced Chinese investors, went to China five times, openly fawned over Chinese President Xi Jinping and ignored a 2016 arbitral ruling in favor of Manila over their disputes in the South China Sea. When Marcos succeeded Rodrigo Duterte, he swiftly repaired strained bilateral ties with Washington, allowing American troops access to additional Filipino bases in the north, including those where they could readily monitor Taiwan amid rising fears of a Chinese invasion. Politicians, Cabalza said, 'are still betting their fates and chances with Sara in case she wins' as president three years from now. In May, many of the politicians that she backed in the campaign for congressional and senatorial positions won. In fact, Rodrigo Duterte, also won as mayor of his hometown, Davao City, even while in International Criminal Court (ICC) detention, as did his son, Sebastian, who won as vice-mayor. Another son, Paolo, won reelection to Congress. Senator Imee Marcos, the president's sister who has complicated the clan feud by aligning with Sara, in explaining her vote to archive the impeachment said late Wednesday on a nationally televised broadcast that oppositionists needed to respect the view of the Supreme Court. 'The voice of the Supreme Court is the voice of the constitution,' she said. 'And those against this are driven purely by ambition.' She called on everyone to 'move on' and accept the ruling. Rodrigo Duterte's former police chief, Senator Ronald Dela Rosa, who oversaw the first phase of the drug war, stressed that while the Senate was a coequal with the high court, it would do well to 'peacefully co-exist' with the judiciary. 'We must follow the Supreme Court ruling, not because it is the most convenient thing to do, but because it is what is right and just – no matter how unacceptable or painful it may be,' Dela Rosa said. Opposition Senator Risa Hontiveros, one of the four dissenters, stressed that voting to archive the impeachment was tantamount to abandoning their mandate. 'We may dismiss or archive the Articles of Impeachment, but it is more difficult to dismiss the pain of the public looking for justice,' she stressed. Jason Gutierrez was head of Philippine news at BenarNews, an online news service affiliated with Radio Free Asia (RFA), a Washington-based news organization that covered many under-reported countries in the region. A veteran foreign correspondent, he has also worked with The New York Times and Agence France-Presse (AFP).
