At YaleGlobal Online foreign correspondent Mike Chinoy analyzes the situation in Hong Kong:
In any case, the long-term prognosis for Hong Kong appears bleak. Indeed, diplomatic sources report that a deeper rethink is underway within the Chinese Communist Party about how to handle the territory. According to one analyst, a number of Chinese think tanks have begun to explore the concept of a “second handover,†acknowledging that, from Beijing’s perspective, the first two decades of post-colonial rule have been a failure. China could seek a new formulation under which Hong Kong would be thoroughly absorbed into the mainland, suggests one well-informed Western observer, “although precisely what Hong Kong will look like afterwards remains to be worked out.â€
In the meantime, the question from China’s the 1989 democracy movement remains: How much longer will China’s communist rulers let this continue?
or, said another way, the Chinese leadership realizes that they don’t need Hong Kong any more and that the risks of a semi-autonomous Hong Kong far exceed the rewards. Or, said yet another way, international agreements with the Chinese authorities are worthless.
I must emphasize that whether China needs Hong Kong is dependent on what the Chinese government wants.
The CCP’s survival depends on not bloodily crushing Hong Kong. Brute force suppression of the protesters will give Democratic and NeverTrump opponents no leg to stand on in their opposition to Trump’s tariffs and trade war. Might well decide the 2020 Presidential election in Trump’s. Xi knows this, which is why the tanks and heavy weapons haven’t been used.
I see striking parallels to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1972.
That’s 1992. We time travelers often get confused.
“Might well decide the 2020 Presidential election in Trump’s. Xi knows this, which is why the tanks and heavy weapons haven’t been used.”
So we should expect the Chinese to hack the RNC and publish the RNC emails? When candidate Biden/Warren/Harris asks China to publish Trump’s private emails we should assume they are serious and not just joking?
Steve
Unless we’re in a major power shooting war on election day, I expect that the deciding factors in the 2020 election will be, as they usually have been, things nearly irrelevant to the office of president and actually a vote of “no confidence” in the Congress.
Approval of one’s own congressman is just over 50%. That’s lower than it has been historically but not at historic lows. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
Before we get all self-righteous about the CCP breaking treaties, we should remember our own sordid history in treaty breaking: Gaddafi, ABM, INF, JCPOA. And Bolton has New Start in his sights.
Great Powers cannot be and are not bound by treaties.
The agreement the UK made with China to transfer Hong Kong back to Chinese governance was intended to be a face-saving device that covered up the fact that the UK could not prevent a Chinese takeover. It was a gift from the Chinese to the UK. To that extent, it was a success.
PS. We are currently negotiating a similar face-saving treaty with the Taliban to disguise the fact they have defeated us.
I often hear that there is not a binary choice between doing nothing and war. Supposedly, there are a lot of options between the two.
To date, I do not see the evidence. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and syria are complete failures. We have crippling sanctions on Iran and N. Korea, and even here, the sanctions are not followed by all countries. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that those countries can be brought to heel with further sanctions.
In any case, Iran and N. Korea have not been brought to heel, and it is unlikely that we could impose such sanctions on a country greater than a regional power. While not a global power, China is more than a regional power.
One time we were able to affect a change, and the result was Pearl Harbor. Countries do not just roll over and die. They fight back, and at which point, you can either do nothing or go to war.
In the surprise of the day; the HK government has formally withdrawn the extradition bill; one of the 5 key demands of the protestors.
It was the easiest step; and it’s hard to say where this goes…. but it’s the first thing that doesn’t point to tragedy in about 2 months.
I think there’s always been an implicit deadline for ending the demonstrations and resolving the issue by October 1.
TastyBits:
As I wrote in a long ago post, when you wage “war” you achieve “peace”. The results of that strategy are apparent at this point. I also think you’ve tagged China correctly. It is a competitor; it is not a superpower; it is a regional superpower. I am not as despairing of the situation as bob sykes. IMO most of China’s military power is turned inwards. More importantly neither we nor they have any real gauge of the value of their military doctrine. It’s essentially untested.
There are two solutions to Iraq and Afghanistan. The winners decide the fate of the losers, and they can be annihilated or migrated. The more humane solution would be to move Afghanis to Iraq and Iraqis to Afghanistan. Each group would be given confiscated land and required to control it.
One of the ways in which my views diverge from the prevailing foreign policy wisdom is that their objective is American Empire. My objective is U. S. security. I suspect that they believe, incorrectly in my opinion, that American Empire will enhance U. S. security.
My approach would be to disrupt the ability of 19 Saudis, Emiratis, and Lebanese to board airplanes and fly them into buildings. Their approach is to give them additional motives for doing so.
I would prefer that we disrupt their ability AND give them less reason for wanting to do so.
Steve
I think that’s a forlorn hope. You have only to read an editorial in the Washington Post to understand why. “All we are saying…is give war a chance…” 🎶