Hong Kong unrest continues…
…and China seems to me to hold the cards.
I remember that, in the late 1990s when I heard that Hong Kong would ultimately be turned over to China, I got a chill of foreboding. Hong Kong was being sacrificed, and the assurances that China would not impose itself unduly on Hong Kong seemed hollow.
Going back now to review what happened over decades ago during the lengthy negotiations, I find this, which occurred during Margaret Thatcher’s first visit to Chine in 1982, after Chinese leaders had already been working the UN for many years (since mainland China’s entry into that august [sarc] body in 1971) and agitating for the takeover of Hong Kong when the British lease would expire in 1997:
In light of the increasing openness of the PRC [Chinese] government and economic reforms on the mainland, the then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher sought the PRC’s agreement to a continued British presence in the territory.
However, the PRC took a contrary position: not only did the PRC wish for the New Territories, on lease until 1997, to be placed under the PRC’s jurisdiction, it also refused to recognise the “unfair and unequal treaties” under which Hong Kong Island and Kowloon had been ceded to Britain in perpetuity. Consequently, the PRC recognised only the British administration in Hong Kong, but not British sovereignty…
During talks with Thatcher, China planned to invade and seize Hong Kong if the negotiations set off unrest in the colony. Thatcher later said that Deng told her bluntly that China could easily take Hong Kong by force, stating that “I could walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon”, to which she replied that “there is nothing I could do to stop you, but the eyes of the world would now know what China is like”…
Actually, I think that at that time most of the world already knew.
More:
During the reception of former British Prime Minister Edward Heath during his sixth visit to the PRC, Deng Xiaoping commented quite clearly on the impossibility of exchanging sovereignty for administration, declaring an ultimatum: the British government must modify or give up its position or the PRC will announce its resolution of the issue of Hong Kong sovereignty unilaterally…
In accordance with the “One country, two systems” principle agreed between the United Kingdom and the People’s Republic of China, the socialist system of the People’s Republic of China would not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), and Hong Kong’s previous capitalist system and its way of life would remain unchanged for a period of 50 years. This would have left Hong Kong unchanged until 2047.
However, many in Hong Kong weren’t buying it, and I certainly don’t blame them:
After the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, the Executive Councillors and the Legislative Councillors of Hong Kong unexpectedly held an urgent meeting, in which they agreed unanimously that the British Government should give the people of Hong Kong the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
More than 10,000 Hong Kong residents rushed to Central in order to get an application form for residency in the United Kingdom. On the eve of the deadline, over 100,000 lined up overnight for a British National (Overseas) application form. While mass migration began well before 1989, the event led to the peak migration year in 1992 with 66,000 leaving.
Many citizens were pessimistic towards the future of Hong Kong and the transfer of the region’s sovereignty. A tide of emigration, which was to last for no less than five years, broke out. At its peak, citizenship of small countries, such as Tonga, was also in great demand.
Singapore, which also had a predominantly Chinese population, was another popular destination
No one should be sanguine about China’s intentions, then or now.
Here’s an article about recent developments:
The Chinese authorities acknowledge Hong Kong’s unrest is the worst since they regained the former British colony 22 years ago. Yet they have so far denied a key protester demand that even Beijing sympathizers support.
On Wednesday, the head of China’s top agency overseeing the city ruled out an independent inquiry into the unrest, one of the few protester requests with support from business leaders and others who typically back the government…
I fear that this will not end well.
neo,
Like you, I expected China to begin incrementally exercising more and more control over Hong Kong, and was surprised it did not appear to happen. Many Hong Kong residents sought and obtained dual citizenship in Canada prior the hand over, due to that concern.
China is much, much more stable than the U.S.S.R. was during Reagan’s Presidency (although, at the time, I don’t think I understood just how unstable the U.S.S.R. was), but I do feel a sense of deja vu when I read about the protests in Hong Kong and the simultaneous (but unrelated?) imposition of counter tariffs on China by the Trump administration.
Will this simile prove to be valid?
Ronald Reagan is to Margaret Thatcher as Donald Trump is to Boris Johnson
Interesting times…
I don’t FREE TIBET bumper stickers any more. I guess people have finally realized that before Tibet can be free, China must be free. HK is in for a terrible time. China is not going to change.
Strange to say, parker, but if I recollect aright the actor Richard Gere was foremost among the Free Tibet touters, yet just today I see a news item with Richard Gere aboard a boat filled with African “refugees” demanding they be allowed into Italy. Italy, on the other hand, seems to have taken the position that they’ve had quite enough, thank you very much, so, no, no thanks.
I had cause to visit Vancouver, British Columbia in the early 2000s. The number of newly arrived Hong Kong citizens was staggering. They knew.
“In accordance with the “One country, two systems” principle agreed between the United Kingdom and the People’s Republic of China, the socialist system of the People’s Republic of China would not be practiced in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), and Hong Kong’s previous capitalist system and its way of life would remain unchanged for a period of 50 years”. my emphasis
It’s going to be Tienanmen Square on steroids. And in imposing tyranny, the ChiComs will be breaking the treaty.
So what to do? How about starting with rescinding China’s “most favored nation status”?
Yes, there will be repercussions. At what point is common decency placed before economic concerns? At what point do we stop funding China’s military aggression and growth?
Obviously if the left has its way, only after it’s far too late…
The Chinese have had to devalue their currency. Growth has slowed. Trade war with the US. Big unrest in Hong Kong.
I’d say the Chinese really need China Joe in the White House.
FWIW, on this website after posting my android tablet allows editing. My Chromebook does not.
I’d say the Chinese really need China Joe in the White House.
China might like Biden as far as his position on their not really being in economic competition with us, but not for his support of the protestors in Hong Kong. The protestors which Trump has said are rioters, in line with China’s rhetoric.
I agree pretty much with Conrad Black’s view on Trump’s strategy with China. Trump is pushing them hard economically. Do we want to go to war if China takes over Hong Kong? And, would Biden continue to push them, or roll over to make some more money (or for his son to do that)?
China has decided that the time is right to bring Hong Kong under the same political dominance as the rest of the country.
And why not? Who will stop them? The U.K. and the U.S. are both in political turmoil.
Not sure if it has been universally been reported in the west but six young people have already been committed suicide by jumping off buildings to condemn the extradition legislation. Beijing deploying the liberation army to Hong Kong is the only way this protest will end because it is a personal vendettas that can be resolved unless blood is shed. No need to go to war with China, just confiscate every penny of China corrupt officials and their relatives assets Beijing will freaking kowtow to America, xi’s opposition would have enough supports to stage coup and they would voluntarily assassin xi and hand his head over to America on a plate. There is no freaking real patriotism in China, the country is being hold together by a fragile social contract based entirely on materialistic prosperity and economic grow, after the atrocities Beijing have done to its people in the last 70 years the only legitimacy to govern the have left is the economy, no soldiers will fight if they don’t get paid, if you can destroy its economy, communist party collapses in a day.
Some of the more valiant Protesters actually want the army to be deployed, they belong to a segment of political opposition in Hong Kong called the scorched earth sect who wants Hong Kong’ economy to be destroyed to punish the business tycoons and pro China middle class who benefitted from the rise of property price who kissed the rings of Beijing through betraying Hong kong’s Self interest. Some say they are sleeping agents of Beijing taking order to sow discourses in Hong Kong to give Beijing excuses to exercise more control in Hong Kong in the name of cracking down insurgents who are seeking independence, some say they take money from CIA or even soros to sow discourses for whatever reasons that benefit the alleged benefactors.
*Shrug*
This was decided when Britain signed off. It was just a question of when.
If the australians – and especially aussie conservatives – are smart they will push for a fast track for these refugees.
Hong Kong was given some kind of independent city/state status. They would not be taxed or rather would not be regulated by Chinese Communist policies. They would retain the capitalist cash cow, which would have to “pay tribute” to the Maoist regime. This satisfied the Communist Gang of 9, since it riched them and Hong Kong movies promoted Chinese exceptionalism. Sorta like Hollywood movies did for FDR American style exceptionalism in WW2.
However recently, some kind of extradition treaty was created where China could extradite people from Hong Kong, and this was agreed and stamped on by the Hong Kong “puppet government” considered to be elected by Hong Kong residents. Well, elections win right?
Until they become a “puppet” at least.
This is not the Hong Kong rebelling against mainland Mao China. The status quo is actually beneficial to both parties. This is Hong Kong raising the finger of rebellion to their own Hong Kong government, which has decided to go Merkel all of a sudden.
The Maoist Chinese has a rather difficult problem here. They would actually not mind compromising, but they would lose face and Hong Kong’s problems should be solved by their own elected officials. If Chinese intervenes… even if in favor of the protestors, this would destroy hong Kong’s independence, and their cash cow status.
They are Fked either way, amazingly enough.
Trum should tell China that the Hong Kong government is causing these problems because the CIA told them to. That would be hilarious, and maybe even true.
Hong kong has a faux parliament system that only half of the seats were open to be elected by the general public, the other half of the seats were allotted to interest groups categorised by different industries in both the public and private sector. Traditionally most of the interest group seats of the private sectors belong to the pro Beijing parties due to Hong Kong’s close commercial ties with China. The system has been designed in a way that Pro democracy parties will never win majority no matter what. Instead what is at stake in most of the past elections had been whether the pro democracy parties could retain the critical veto power by winning 1/3 of the seats, and pro Beijing parties having the majority while the democratic parties having the veto power to safeguard autonomy of Hong Kong by vetoing legislations ordered to be proposed by Beijing through their proxy agents had been the status quo for many years after the turnover. The status quo was broken when Beijing found a new very creative way to steal seats from the democratic parties in order to take away the veto power by disqualifying legitimately elected lawmakers (mostly under 30 freshman youngsters who were inexperienced and got set up) by finding faults in their actions (such as acting disrespectful to China during the Inaugural Ceremonies) and abusing the final court of appeal system to redefine previously allow actions into not disqualifiable actions.
Dave:
That’s fascinating information.
Dave:
Thanks for you insight.
Correction:
In the last sentence it should be
now disqualify offenses.