Analyzing the developments in Hong Kong in a piece at The American Interest, Jianli Yang and Aaron Rhodes, reflect:
n this precarious moment, Hong Kongers should consolidate their gains by claiming victory and continuing to demonstrate for political freedoms and against Communist Party rule. But they must do everything in their power to prevent these protests from becoming violent, and to avoid playing into the hands of those seeking justification to enact Articles 14 and 18 of the Basic Law. They should participate in September’s upcoming elections for District Legislators, and in the March 2020 elections for the Legislative Council. Several visionary protestors have been calling on young people participating in the protests to register as new voters. The Hong Kong election authorities announced on August 1 that 385,985 have become new registered voters this year, a 47 percent increase from the 2015 election year.
Members of the protest movement must also expand their advocacy in international institutions, national governments, and civil society. They must make the point that their struggle will have consequences of the highest order, not only for the future of Hong Kong and China, but for democracy and human rights globally.
The U.S. government must push back against the hackneyed Communist Party claim that America is the force behind these homegrown protests for freedom, and it should also firmly defend the rights of Hong Kongers to freedom of expression and assembly on the basis of international standards and the principles of universal, individual political rights.
I think the authors are missing something in their analysis. Not everyone takes a strategy aimed at maximizing gain; alternatively, they may attempt to minimize loss. I would speculate that under the circumstances that is the strategy that Xi will adopt which suggests that a brutal crackdown is his best strategy.
In the end, no one in the Soviet Union was a communist. The people and the leaders wanted the regime to go away. They, and explicitly Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Medvedev, and Putin, wanted a “united Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok.†They even wanted Russia in NATO and the EU. Our neocons snuffed that out.
But Xi and the CCP are true believers, and they are Chinese patriots. Xi is not Mao, but he not Deng either. He will have no problem crushing the demonstrations. Chinese unity is more important than optics or even the financial ruin of Hong Kong.
If only our own Ruling Class were such patriots. Maybe working people in the Midwest would still have jobs.
One country, two systems was significantly eroded early on with China controlling positions of power in Hong Kong, with I believe no objection or tacit support from the UK and US. Recently China has been installing people from the Mainland in important positions in government and business in Hong Kong, leaving young people to believe that there is no future for them, they are slowing being shuttered aside. And two systems expires in 2047 anyway.
The protest participant interviewed on a British podcast said they had five basic demands, arranged in decreasing levels of likelihood. Generally, they would be happy with the easiest demand — withdrawal of the extradition bill, which the chief executive has suspended. Since suspension is not a step in the system, it takes on an existential role in revealing that there are not “two systems,” it’s all arbitrary rule, albeit indirect. It’s also my sense that China doesn’t want to replicate the Tiananmen Square crisis, which posed difficult questions for the party, and China doesn’t know whether withdrawing the extradition bill increases or decreases the odds.
Is it not the reverse?
A brutal crackdown is going for maximum gain (while risking maximum losses); seeking a compromise with the protesters in Hong Kong is like a stop loss; take an L but avoids the worse consequences and live for another day.
Lets put it this way; the maximum upside on a crackdown is it pacifies Hong Kong for a generation; the catastrophic risk is (a) Hong Kong isn’t pacified and costs hundreds of billions and ties hundreds of thousands of troops for years (b) spurs Taiwan towards de jure independence (c) colors relations with the developed world for 5-10 years.
On the other hand, seeking a compromise would cost (a) replacing the current HK leadership (who are incompetent so not a loss) (b) an independent inquiry that could take years (c) some negotiations with the “pan-democrat” coalition on some reforms (that would also take time) (d) some “face” in taking compromise.
By the way, Deng ordered the troops in Tianamen.
I don’t know. As I see it the worst case for Xi (and the CCP) is that a fractious Hong Kong inspires other areas of China to do the same thing. The way I see it that must be nipped in the bud. Relations with non-China world is just not a consideration at all.
@CuriousOnlooker, why hasn’t the suspended bill been withdrawn? Seems like “face” is an important factor here.
I don’t think China can ignore relations with the non-China world. The non-China world can still wreck China’s economy if they decide to do something stupid.
@PD Shaw. It is some point of principle; maybe the Chinese government will never give an inch, or the people can never have a say, or Government knows best, or some bizarre thing about “face”.
A more sarcastic take is the comedian Russell Peters wry observation about bargaining at a Chinese mall in Toronto. Bargaining over cents on a $50 purchase that angers the customer to no end.