Last month's massive demonstrations in Hong Kong, when over half a million residents poured into the streets in protest against the government of Chief Execu-tive Tung Chee-hwa (董建華), continues to echo. Never in Hong Kong's history has popular opposition -- uniting investment bankers, street hawkers, off-duty civil servants and artists, among others -- been so loud. China's communist rulers are dithering about how to respond.
One objective of the demonstrators was to voice their desire to select Hong Kong's future leaders through universal suffrage. Today, 800 electors handpicked by the Chinese government -- who mostly represent big business -- choose Hong Kong's chief executive.
The unpopularity of Hong Kong's incompetent and sycophantic chief executive, chosen by China for a second five-year term that will only end in 2007, creates a grave dilemma for Beijing's rulers. Before last month's protests, they hoped that Hong Kong would provide so attractive an example of the idea of "one country, two systems" that Taiwan would be lured into accepting the sovereignty of the government in Beijing. Now Taiwan's leaders point to Hong Kong as a failed model of a flawed concept.
Indeed, Tung's anticipatory subservience to the real or imagined wishes of China's rulers exposed the congenital flaw in the political architecture of uniting a liberal society with a dictatorship. That flaw infects the heart of the "one country, two systems" notion: the idea that genuine autonomy can exist in a country whose supreme leaders do not believe in rule by consent.
Now China's rulers find themselves trapped in a bind. If they back Tung unconditionally for the rest of his term, they can look forward to the collapse of their long-term strategy to reabsorb Taiwan, for the alternative to peaceful unification with Taiwan is coercion.
But any resort to coercion increases the likelihood of military confrontation with the US, Taiwan's protector. In this context, the steady build-up of China's short to medium-range missile capability is a cause for alarm, such missiles being the principle threat against Taiwan. As the US Defense Department's Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China recently put it, "The primary driving force for China's military modernization is Beijing's perceived need to prepare credible military options in any potential conflict in the Taiwan Strait."
Such a nightmare scenario isn't at all likely in Hong Kong, but a steady rot of Hong Kong's vitality is. For if the frustrations of ordinary Hong Kong citizens are allowed to fester without a genuine commitment by China to allow for universal suffrage by 2007, a far more serious eruption of social and political unrest beckons.
Such frustrations are growing. Unemployment now stands at 9 percent -- unimaginable before the handover in 1997, when both Tung and China promised that Hong Kong would do even better under Chinese sovereignty than under British rule. In fact, many observers believe that Hong Kong's real rate of joblessness is much higher, and fear that the trend is not encouraging.
China's leaders, and their handpicked servants in Hong Kong may still believe that Tung's popularity will revive if and when the economy does. So they comfort themselves with the thought that demands for democratization reflect Hong Kong's economic woes, nothing more.
But six years of divisive as well as dismissively haughty misrule by Tung's administration, which pits one group against another as its preferred method of governance, suggest that Hong Kong's problems are much deeper. Hong Kong is now an acrimoniously divided society harking back to the days when Chinese communists routinely classified their own citizens as either "the people" or "enemies of the state."
Most people in Hong Kong now recognize that their stagnating economy is not merely a matter of bad policy. It also results from deeply flawed political structures. In an oligarchic economy such as that of today's Hong Kong, the costs of stagnation and the fruits of growth are distributed in grossly unfair ways. This cynical structure must be changed if people are to have enough confidence in the future for the economy to recover.
If China's rulers heed the wishes of Hong Kong's 7 million people to have the right to elect their own leaders through direct elections, however, they face the prospect that China's 1.3 billion people will demand the same right. Perhaps so. But a political system is only ever truly put at risk when leaders consistently misrule.
Indeed, democracies are so stable because they allow misrule to be ended through regularly scheduled elections. Because stability is their great goal, China's communist rulers, if they are wise, will allow Hong Kong to show the way to a system in which Chinese govern themselves democratically, peacefully and prosperously. Taiwan has already done so. Hong Kong provides a more intimate case study for China's people to watch and one day follow.
But if the goal is merely for the communists to retain their mono-poly on power, in both Hong Kong and China, then the rot that has settled into Hong Kong's polity and its economy may begin to infect the mainland. At that point, China might wish it had never heard of Tung. Indeed, it might wish it had never secured Hong Kong's return.
Shaw Sin-ming was a leading Hong Kong investment fund manager. He is now a resident scholar at Oriel College, Oxford University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers