So the British
government's Foreign Office has backed down on the row over Hong Kong's
elections, saying that it welcomes "the confirmation
that China's objective is for the election of Hong Kong's Chief Executive through
universal suffrage."
Calling the proposed system for the election of Hong Kong's Chief
Executive in 2017 "universal suffrage" is clearly stretching things.
According to Beijing's plan, the people of Hong Kong will only be able to
choose between two or three candidates (apparently too many candidates would confuse people. Weren't the Chinese meant to be good at maths?). These candidates will have to be pre-approved by a
committee packed with Beijing loyalists, and they will have to be
"patriotic". Everyone understands that for the CCP being patriotic
means toeing the party line, and that anyone who is basically opposed to them
and their goals won't have a chance in hell of being approved as a candidate.
The Foreign Office adds: "While we recognize that there is no perfect
model, the important thing is that the people of Hong Kong have a genuine
choice and a real stake in the outcome". The truth is that while the
people of Hong Kong certainly have a stake in the outcome, it is perfectly
clear that they will be offered no real choice whatsoever.
The British government's new stance is clearly an attempt not to let the
issue of democracy in Hong Kong hurt its relations with China. It also
represents an abandonment of any serious attempt to exert a pressure on China
to respect the terms of the Joint Declaration signed by Zhao Ziyang and
Margaret Thatcher in 1984. According to Hong Kong's Basic Law, which was drawn
up by the PRC's National People's Congress in 1990 in accordance with that
declaration, Hong Kong's chief executive is supposed to be elected by universal
suffrage, "in accordance with democratic procedures". It had already
been agreed that this would be realized by 2017.
Many in Hong Kong's pro-democracy camp have of course criticized the
British government for this capitulation. On the other hand, I cannot really
see what else Britain should do. It clearly has no real power to influence
China's decisions. What's more, any attempt by Britain or other foreign
countries to affect what happens in Hong Kong will only make matters
worse.
China's government draws much of its remaining legitimacy from its
supposed protection of the motherland from the evil "foreign powers"
forever plotting to keep China down. Most of the Mainland population buys into
this narrative to a great extent. If Britain is seen as strongly supporting
Hong Kong pro-democracy movement, this will simply allow the Chinese government
to tar them as the agents of a foreign power which plundered and divided China
in the past. It will also be easy game for them to point out the hypocrisy of
Britain acting this way, when Hong Kong never actually had elections under
British rule.
Genuine
representative democracy for Hong Kong is of course a worthy goal. There is
really no reason why a city like Hong Kong shouldn't have free elections (of
course Singapore, in many ways Hong Kong's twin city-state, seems to manage
fine with its semi-authoritarian system). On the other hand, given how
unpopular the CCP and the whole of the Mainland's social system are in Hong
Kong, it is very likely that genuine elections would be won by candidates who
oppose Beijing's policies. This is probably why Beijing will never willingly
allow Hong Kongers to choose their own leaders.
The CCP will
continue to allow Hong Kong to maintain its extremely high degree of autonomy and freedom,
as long as the Hong Kongers don't rock the boat. If not, they have already threatened to revoke the territory's
autonomy if Hong Kong doesn't "respect" the Mainland's political
system.
What it comes down
to is that if Hong Kongers want democratic representation, they are going to
have to fight for it themselves. On the other hand I doubt that most of the
city's inhabitants will want to risk its prosperity and stability for the sake
of a protracted fight with Beijing. Unfortunately it may well be that their
goal will remain out of reach, until real change comes to the whole of China in
one form or another.
Another lesson we
can draw from all of this is that the CCP is never going to grant any form of
democratic representation to China unless they are put under serious pressure
by their own people to do so. If they cannot even bring themselves to allow
Hong Kongers to choose their own leaders, after promising that this would
happen by 2017, I don't believe that they will ever allow the
Mainland Chinese to have a say in who governs them.
1 comment:
Maybe Britons should be ashamed of their government and expect them to do better. But having said that, I think decent decisions - in whatever country or government - are rare, and opportunism is a norm.
And the British government did make an unusually wise and decent decision in the early 1990s - they made Chris Patten governor of Hong Kong. A well-connected politician with the backing of the prime minister.
Any other governor with the nerves to advocate democracy in HK would most probably have fallen victim to a Heseltine campaign. Heseltine was trade minister at the time, and keen on expanding biz opportunities with Beijing.
Post a Comment