Over the weekend the people of Hong Kong reprimanded the government in Beijing in local elections. The editors of the Wall Street Journal approve:
The 452 district councillors have little power beyond answering to local concerns, but these elections were the first city-wide chance to render a verdict on nearly six months of protests against the government. More than 71% of voters turned out, and by our deadline the South China Morning Post was reporting that pro-democracy candidates had won 201 seats to only 28 for candidates representing the Hong Kong establishment or pro-Beijing parties. Twelve independents had also won.
It’s a stunning result. Some Hong Kong officials had speculated that a silent majority opposed to the protests might turn out to support the government. But the result showed that, whatever worries voters have about the excesses of some protesters, they are more worried about a Hong Kong government that follows Beijing’s orders.
and urge President Trump to sign the symbolic resolution passed by Congress:
The vote is also a message, or perhaps a plea, to President Donald Trump to support Hong Kong’s call for freedom. Mr. Trump hasn’t exactly been a voice of Reaganite moral clarity on Hong Kong, and he hasn’t decided whether to sign the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act that passed the House and Senate in nearly unanimous votes this month.
“We have to stand with Hong Kong, but I’m also standing with President Xi,†Mr. Trump said Friday. “He’s a friend of mine. He’s an incredible guy. . . . But I’d like to see them work it out. Okay? We have to see and work it out. But I stand with Hong Kong. I stand with freedom. I stand with all of the things that we want to do, but we also are in the process of making the largest trade deal in history. And if we could do that, that would be great.â€
We understand Mr. Trump’s pragmatic desire not to insult Mr. Xi amid the trade talks, but his rhetorical indulgence of dictators is often cringe-worthy. The best you can say about Mr. Xi is that he hasn’t sent in Chinese troops to crush dissent in Hong Kong.
Do we stand on the side of liberal democracy and self-determination? Of course we do. What isn’t clear to me is whether the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act will help the people of Hong Kong, hurt them, or have no effect other than to signal how righteous we are. Shouldn’t we engage in more than just an affirmation of our lofty ideals? Or is it enough to express them while making our decisions pragmatically?
I tend to think the US policy (including the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act) has the balance roughly right.
President Trump has not taken the lead; the people of Hong Kong have.
The Act is really a statement of US interests. It is not the natural state for sub national entities to be treated as distinct countries for economic purposes by the US. Look at Scotland and England – they are treated as one. HK is treated separately, as US recognization that 1 country 2 systems served US interests. If 1 country 2 systems becomes fictional, I do not see why the US should continue to pretend it is still functioning and serving US interests.
I never thought that “One Country Two Systems” would last until 2047. I don’t see how the CCP can tolerate it.
The CCP tolerates HK as it is because it continues to be worth the cost.
It is hard to create an international financial center, money isn’t enough, you need robust systems of civil law, property rights, etc. Notice Alibaba decided to list in Hong Kong and not Shanghai.
The CCP could end HK’s autonomy but it would be left with 2 choices (a) eschew international capital like before 1980 or (b) have all those transactions in a jurisdiction that the CCP has no control like London, New York, or Singapore.
The bill does harm if the message to protesters is that the US has their back.
Or an irritating and empty warning to Beijing.
I wonder, would we have engaged Germany in WWII with knowledge of death camps alone? If Hitler hadn’t attacked France, Belgium, or the UK. I think not. We should be careful not to give people of Hong Kong false hope.
It does harm if it makes Xi decide that he needs to crack down on Hong Kong to end a U. S.-fomented revolt.
CuriousOnlooker:
I’ve read some article lately claiming that China doesn’t need foreign trade any more. I’m skeptical and I’m not sure how those making the claim can possibly know.
I think we should provide lots of unofficial positive support to the protestors. On the official level we should largely stay out of it. We have little chance of making it better and a high probability that we make things worse. Look at our record. (We persist in this odd belief that government sucks, it should be as little as possible, it is incompetent and poorly run, then we want that same government to get involved in a struggle in another country expecting that we can make it all better. Dont get it.)
Steve
I don’t think it makes much difference. Congress has a long history of passing similar resolutions and they seem to be one of the few bipartisan areas left.
Dave :
It again depends on what the Chinese government wants, everything has tradeoffs.
We start with this inescapable fact. China imports most of its energy (oil and natural gas), and much of its protein (e.g. soybeans).
If the choice is no foreign trade, it can be done but living standards to go back to where it was 50 years ago.
If it chooses to trade, China requires capital. That trade cannot be conducted in RMB or in China because (a) the RMB is not convertible (b) the system of civil law and protection of private property is weak. If the trade is done in HK, at least it is not subject to “Western” control.
There is a 3rd option, pursue liberal reforms such as improving the system of civil law and protection of private property, which makes convertibility of the RMB possible. Then Hong Kong is not needed, but Hong Kong would be much happier as well. The rub is that it is against the interests of the CCP.
I think one thing the CCP believes it has a surplus of is time, at least as long as Xi stays healthy.
“We persist in this odd belief that government sucks, it should be as little as possible, it is incompetent and poorly run, then we want that same government to get involved in a struggle in another country expecting that we can make it all better. Dont get it.”
That’s because like most political assertions you make they are constructs of your imagination. Who is we? Obama? HRC? GWB? Bill Kristol? Yes. Neocons all. Not me. Not those supposed Trump cultists.
“I think one thing the CCP believes it has a surplus of is time, at least as long as Xi stays healthy.”
IMO Xi will stay healthy at least until the day of the 2020 Presidential election. After that, his health depends on who wins. If Trump is reelected, he may not last the rest of the year.
The HK resolution is both virtue-signaling and a probably futile attempt to box Trump in on trade. He signs, Xi stops all trade negotiations, he vetoes, he’s a callous greedy monster. I suspect he’ll sign because he’s happy with no trade deal.