China perma-hawk Gordon Chang, observing the escalating situation in Hong Kong, declaims at The National Interest:
Sefying stern warnings from both the local government and Beijing, people in seven districts in Hong Kong—most notably teachers, airport workers, and civil servants—participated in a general strike Monday, shutting down portions of the territory. For instance, more than a hundred flights were cancelled.
The strike followed weeks of sometimes violent protests in the territory, a semi-autonomous region of the People’s Republic of China. Youthful demonstrators over the weekend surrounded and attacked police stations, and enraged residents drove riot police from their neighborhoods.
Roving protesters, dressed for urban combat, created a series of confrontations across the territory, even closing the main tunnel linking Hong Kong Island with the rest of the territory. A beleaguered police force, demoralized and fatigued, was unable to keep up with the mobile bands of radicalized youth.
Some of the protest messages were impossible to miss. In Wanchai’s Golden Bauhinia Square, a magnet for tourists from other parts of China, kids spray-painted a statue with provocative statements such as “The Heavens will destroy the Communist Party†and “Liberate Hong Kong.â€
In Hong Kong, revolution is in the air. What started out as an unexpectedly large demonstration in late April against a piece of legislation—an extradition bill—has become a call for democracy in the territory as well as independence from China and the end of communism on Chinese soil.
Here are my questions. How long will the Chinese authorities tolerate the situation in Hong Kong? For that matter how long will they tolerate “one country two systems”? What should the U. S. position be? What will the U. S. position be?
They have to put this down, and soon. When they do, it will bring the trade issue into a whole different perspective.
The US position should always be that political communities have the inherent right to self-determination, particularly those that seek to democratically self-govern.
That doesn’t mean, however, that we have any obligation to intervene on their behalf. Self-determination that requires foreign intervention is self-determination in name only.
So, the United States
That’s been my position for some time. I look with some grim amusement at the notional idealists, struggling to straddle interventionism and pragmatism. If you take an idealist position, you necessarily should view evils in proportion. When you factor in costs as well it’s not nearly as idealistic. It makes one wonder if they’re not actually nihilists.
Speaking of pragmatism, it’s one of the great American philosophical traditions that we seem determined to cast aside in favor of ideology, dogma, and feelings.
It is a Dionysian age.
I would second Andy. Our intervention should be mostly limited to wishing Hong Kong good luck, then sell them medical supplies.
Steve
It is commonsense to not get involved in a dispute unless interests are at stake and involvement would be beneficial.
The complication in the case of Hong Kong is Hong Kong’s autonomy exists because it is recognized by the Chinese government AND by the US, UK, EU, etc. The US has codified this in law with the “Hong Kong policy act”; through it, the US government treats Hong Kong as
separate entity from China in finance, trade, and extradition/immigration. For example, Hong Kong is not subject to export controls of dual use technologies.
This treatment is what makes Hong Kong a financial hub and useful to the Chinese government, whose ambitions requires control of an international financial hub.
To keep the Hong Kong policy act if a crackdown occurs is foolishness, to revoke the Hong Kong policy act if a crackdown occurs would cause big ripples.
As for the what the Chinese government will do and when; the extended leadership is meeting during the month of August, so probably any actions will occur after. As to what will happen, the most important points are :
1) The most significant aspect is an “awakening” of cultural distinctiveness in Hong Kong society. No matter what the Chinese government does; this will be the dominant factor in Hong Kong / Chinese relationship for decades to come; just as Taiwanese identity has become the focal point in China/Taiwan relations.
2) The Chinese government have an information problem — they have an extensive information gathering apparatus in HK, but the Chinese government’s actions betray an ignorance as to what is happening on the ground
3) If the HK police falter, the Chinese government would probably send the public security force; the PLA is seen as the nuclear option.