Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” framework is dead. China’s decision to impose strict national security legislation has ended the territory’s legal autonomy and signaled a direct takeover of local governance at a time of escalating US-China tensions.
Ever since last year’s months-long pro-democracy protests, the deteriorating situation on the ground has exacerbated three interrelated problems that could further destabilize Hong Kong’s volatile politics.
The first challenge concerns the convergence of global and local pressures for meaningful systematic change.
Hong Kong has transformed itself into a major political theater, where international actors strive to demonstrate their displeasure at China’s failure to stop the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan from erupting into a pandemic that could kill tens of millions.
It has also become a place of intense power contests, where rival ruling factions compete to show their allegiance to Beijing, while pursuing their own agendas.
The most notorious figure is Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥). Seeing that she and her Cabinet ministers are not targets for international sanctions, Lam is taking advantage of intensifying US-China conflicts to appease Beijing.
[Editor’s note: The US Department of the Treasury on Friday said that the US is placing sanctions on 11 Chinese officials and their allies in Hong Kong, including Chief Executive Carrie Lam.]
Shifting the blame for Hong Kong’s political stalemate and a third wave of COVID-19, she disqualified 12 pro-democracy candidates, suspended the September Legislative Council elections and launched a massive witch hunt against political dissent.
Her autocratic rule is bound to cause more terror and mayhem for Hong Kongers.
The second problem has to do with the corrosive effects of China’s ideological propaganda. German philosopher Theodor Adorno said that propagandists often fall victim to their own lies, elevating the imagined enemies they have invented and demonized.
The strategy of deception and disinformation is part and parcel of China’s propaganda campaign in the territory.
Its ultra-nationalistic propaganda against pro-democracy advocates and civic sectors is repetitively consistent.
The Beijing-controlled media outlets glorify the supremacy of Xi Jinping Thought (習近平思想), celebrate China’s resilience against external and internal threats, and promote Hong Kong’s dependency on China.
They also disseminate stories about China’s unstoppable rise against the West, its rapprochement with Russia and Iran, and increasing disagreement within the US-led international order.
Unless the recipients are highly informed and critical of such propaganda, they come to terms with deception being the norm. Beijing and its handpicked local agents have embraced the policy of deception to mask their lack of legitimacy and to consolidate their rule.
How people compromise under state pressure has dictated everyday life in Hong Kong. It is difficult to be politically neutral, because China’s definition of politics focuses narrowly on any opinion and action that could be perceived as either for or against the communist state.
Shortly after the National Security Law was announced, many local entrepreneurs, civil servants, educators, parents and students deleted Facebook and Twitter posts that showed support for the pro-democracy movement.
The popular slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times” and the once-loved song Glory to Hong Kong are taboo.
Replacing the rule of law with the rule of fear and force scores a short-term political victory for Beijing, but this authoritarian move destroys public confidence in the health and integrity of Hong Kong.
The third problem concerns the many uncertainties on the diplomatic front.
The West has so far been tough on rhetoric and soft on action. Seeking to send multiple signals to Beijing, the proposed US sanctions on Hong Kong leniently treat top Chinese communist leaders and local government officials who are guilty of human rights violations.
Washington appears to be pragmatic when demanding a substantive shift in Beijing’s Hong Kong policy. It has not pursued measures that could break the Hong Kong dollar’s peg to the US currency, weakening the territory’s indispensable role as China’s financial powerhouse.
For Beijing, the quickest, most logical resolution to the Hong Kong crisis would be to scapegoat Lam, her Cabinet and the violent police force. This would also help Beijing win some praise from the international community.
The worst scenario would be for Beijing to tighten its grip over the territory, and squeeze material resources from local elites through coercion or dealmaking.
Evidently, Hong Kong has passed the point of no return and is likely to be ungovernable from within.
How to resolve this crisis peacefully cannot be decided by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Lam alone. A peaceful solution to this unprecedented conflict demands a reimagining of the territory’s constitutional status and a fundamental change in its ruling structure.
Joseph Tse-hei Lee is professor of history at Pace University in New York City.
As India’s six-week-long general election grinds past the halfway mark, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s messaging has shifted from confident to shrill. After the first couple of phases of polling showed a 3 percentage point drop in turnout, Modi and his party leaders have largely stopped promoting their accomplishments of the past 10 years — or, for that matter, the “Modi guarantees” offered in the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) manifesto for the next five. Instead, making the majority Hindu population fear and loathe Muslims seems to be the BJP’s preferred talking point. Modi went on the offensive in an April 21
As Ukraine leads the global fight for democracy, Taiwan, facing a potential war with China, should draw lessons from Ukraine’s cyberwarfare success. Taiwan has been enhancing its arsenal with advanced weapons from the West in anticipation of a possible full-scale invasion. However, Taipei should also consider Ukraine’s effective digital warfare, notably the “IT [information technology] Army,” a decentralized force instrumental in Kyiv’s cybercampaigns. In February 2022, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine marked the onset of a significant cyberwar, where fears of a “digital Pearl Harbor” in Ukraine were unmet, thanks to robust cyberdefenses backed by Western public and private support. This led
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is attempting to create an alternative international world order to the US-dominated model. China has benefited hugely from the current order since former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) opened up its economy five decades ago. Countries can be categorized as continental or maritime, and to a great degree this determines their optimum foreign policy. China is continental, as is Russia. The US initially followed a continental foreign policy, before it settled on a maritime model. The British empire was so successful because a tiny island kingdom built a formidable naval presence. The US-dominated world order, stabilized by
With the addition this year of Sweden and last year Finland to NATO, the Baltic Sea has been dubbed a “NATO lake” by some analysts. A glance at a map shows that is largely (but not completely) true — the coastline has a couple of slivers of Russian territory. The rest of the coastal littoral is in NATO hands: Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany and Denmark. Russia controls a bit of coast between Lithuania and Poland because of its strange enclave of Kaliningrad. Russian President Vladimir Putin remains in control of the far eastern corner of the Baltic Sea