Hong Kong is part of China, but enjoys a charmed existence. Administered separately from the rest of the People’s Republic of China, the territory respects civil liberties while hosting the world’s freest economy.
Demonstrators are pressing Beijing to make good on its promise to Great Britain to provide what London never did when the territory was a British colony: democratic rule and free elections. However, China will not, indeed cannot, give residents of Hong Kong what it refuses to give the rest of its citizens. The territory’s future depends on finding a compromise that preserves Hong Kong’s freedom and peace.
The British colony grew out of imperial China’s weakness. However, Great Britain’s imperialist land grab redounded to the benefit of the territory’s residents, who enjoyed economic liberty, rule of law and civil liberties.
London had seized Hong Kong Island, then the Kowloon Peninsula, and later “leased” the New Territories. In 1997, the lease’s 99-year term ran out, at which point Beijing was legally entitled to take back the New Territories.
Dividing Hong Kong would have been a practical nightmare, and Beijing might not have continued to honor territorial cessions forced more than a century before. So in 1984, London agreed to the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which committed the British government to the full territory’s return.
The transfer left one of history’s great “What ifs”: What if then-British prime minister Margaret Thatcher had scheduled a referendum in which the territory’s residents could freely express their decision?
Few likely would have opted for Beijing. China still was a poor, authoritarian state, early in the process of economic reform.
At the time, a still weak and isolated Beijing probably would have felt little choice but to accept an adverse vote. However, China might have chosen to bide its time, as it has done with Taiwan. Then Hong Kong today would be another fractious, potentially violent, territorial dispute in East Asia.
While returning Hong Kong was Britain’s safe course, doing so meant transferring millions of people to communist-ruled China. Beijing committed to respect Hong Kong’s uniqueness for a half century.
However, Beijing never promised to hold fully free elections.
Rather, the 1984 declaration stated: “The chief executive will be appointed by the Central People’s Government on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally.”
The Basic Law (essentially the territory’s constitution) — approved six years later by Beijing — provided for “nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.”
China claims that is what it is implementing.
As of 2017, residents will be able to elect their ruler, but only from candidates vetted by Beijing. It will not be real democracy, but then there never was much chance that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) would institute real democracy in any area under its control.
That is not fair to Hong Kong’s residents, so it is impossible not to admire the protesters. However, their very passion threatens their objectives.
They have divided over tactics, while paralyzing daily life, thereby sparking criticism from some other residents. Even many who sympathize with the protestors fear a crackdown.
The greatest risk is that Beijing might believe it must choose between repression and either chaos or democracy. In 1989, the CCP sent in tanks to clear democracy-minded demonstrators out of Tiananmen Square.
Beijing would pay an even higher price for cracking down in Hong Kong. Still, the Chinese regime places self-preservation above everything else.
Moreover, if China violently dispersed the protesters, it would not likely stop there. Media freedom and judicial independence would also be at risk.
This week, crowds thinned and demonstrators cleared a path for government workers. Tension further eased as demonstrators and government officials agreed to talks. Democracy advocates should temper their idealism with an acute sense of pragmatism.
Beijing might sacrifice Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying (梁振英) to gain peace. Zhongnanhai might also be willing to make other concessions, such as broadening the nomination process. However, Beijing will insist that Chinese officials, not Hong Kong residents, be in charge.
Nothing the US does can bring democracy to the territory. To the contrary, the more Washington attempts to intervene, the more likely China is to perceive the demonstrators to be threats.
Democracy advocates have moral right on their side. Still, raw power is likely to prevail in any showdown. The protesters must temper idealism with prudence. They must not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good for their own sake — and ultimately that of Hong Kong and China as well.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with