In Hong Kong, It's US vs. China Now

At first glance, it would appear that five months of pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong had produced a stunning triumph.

By September, the proposal of city leader Carrie Lam that ignited the protests -- to allow criminal suspects to be extradited to China for trial -- had been withdrawn.

And though the protesters' demands escalated along with their tactics, from marches to mass civil disobedience, Molotov cocktails, riots and attacks on police, Chinese troops remained confined to their barracks.

Beijing wanted no reenactment of Tiananmen Square, the midnight massacre in the heart of Beijing that drowned in blood the 1989 uprising for democratic rights.

In Hong Kong, the police have not used lethal force. In five months of clashes, only a few have perished. And when elections came last month, Beijing was stunned by the landslide victory of the protesters.

Finally, last month, Congress passed by huge margins in both houses a Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act that threatens sanctions on Hong Kong authorities should they crush the rebels.

When President Donald Trump signed the bills, the protesters now had the U.S. as an ally, and the Chinese reacted viscerally.

An enraged Foreign Ministry declared: "The U.S. ... openly backed violent criminals who rampantly smashed facilities, set fire, assaulted innocent civilians, trampled on the rule of law and jeopardized social order.

"This so-called bill will only make the Chinese people ... further understand the sinister intentions and hegemonic nature of the United States. It will only make the Chinese people more united and make the American plot more doomed to failure."

Sunday, black-clad masked protesters were back in the streets, waving American flags, erecting barricades, issuing new demands -- for greater autonomy for Hong Kong, the release of jailed protesters and the punishment of police who used excessive force.

Instead, it has escalated, and the U.S. government, having given up its posture of benevolent neutrality in favor of peaceful demonstrators for democracy, has become an open ally of often-violent people who are battling Chinese police inside a Chinese city.

On Monday, China retaliated, suspending visits to Hong Kong by U.S. military planes and Navy ships and declaring sanctions on the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House and half a dozen other U.S. agencies that promote democracy for interfering in the internal affairs of China.

China has just celebrated the 70th anniversary of the Revolution where Mao proclaimed, "China has stood up!" after a century of foreign humiliations and occupations.

Can Xi Jinping, already the object of a Maoist cult of personality, accept U.S. intervention in the internal affairs of his country or a city that belongs to China? Not likely. Nor is China likely to accede to demands for greater sovereignty, self-determination or independence for Hong Kong.

This would only raise hopes of the city's eventual escape from its ordained destiny: direct rule by Beijing when the 50-year China-U.K. treaty regarding the transfer of Hong Kong expires in 2047.

For Xi to capitulate to the demands of Hong Kong's demonstrators could cause an outbreak of protests in other Chinese cities and bring on a crisis of the regime.

Xi Jinping is no Mikhail Gorbachev. He is not going to let his people go. He is not going to risk a revolution to overturn the Maoist Revolution he has served his entire life.

A ruler committing the atrocities Xi is committing today in the concentration camps in the Uighur regions of China is staying his hand in Hong Kong only so the world and the West cannot see the true face of the ideology in which this true believer believes.

In providing moral support for protesters in Hong Kong who desire the freedoms we enjoy, America is on the right side. But to align the U.S. with the protesters' cause, and threaten sanctions if their demands are not met, is to lead these demonstrators to make demands that Hong Kong's rulers cannot meet and China will not allow.

We should ask ourselves some questions before we declare our solidarity with the protesters engaging the Hong Kong police.

If the police crush them, or if China's army moves in and crushes the demonstrators whose hopes were raised by America's declared solidarity, then what are we prepared to do to save them and their cause?

Are we willing to impose sanctions on Beijing, such as we have on Venezuela, Iran and Vladimir Putin's Russia?

Some of us yet recall how the Voice of America broadcast to the Hungarian rebels of 1956 that if they rose up and threw the Russians out, we would be at their side. The Hungarians rose up. We did nothing. And one of the great bloodbaths of the Cold War ensued.

Are we telling the protesters of Hong Kong, "We've got your back!" when we really don't?

RE: Hey, Pat, (AKA Mr. I told you so), didn’t the Chinese sign an agreement with the British regarding the transfer of Hong Kong to them? Something like they were to maintain Hong Kong’s independence etc. Something like that?

___________________________

Let’s look at the situation more closely ...

Prior to the handover to China, After lengthy negotiations, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Chinese Premier Deng Xiaoping signed a Joint Declaration on the future of Hong Kong. Britain agreed to return the territory to China on July 1, 1997, on the promise that China would give Hong Kong a “high degree of autonomy” for 50 years, until 2047.

Formally, Hong Kong became a “special administration region” of the People’s Republic of China. The deal: China wouldn’t impose its government on Hong Kong, and Hong Kong’s “previous capitalist system and life-styles” would remain unchanged for that 50-year period. The setup became known as the “one country, two systems” rule.

Under this arrangement, Hong Kong could maintain its economic and trade policies, designed to protect Hong Kong’s status as an international financial capital. It gave Hong Kong its own judicial, executive, and legislative powers. And, as Thatcher put it at the time, it “preserves Hong Kong’s familiar legal system and the rights and freedoms enjoyed there.” That included freedom of the press, assembly, and religious beliefs, among other rights.

Despite the Joint Declaration’s guarantee of autonomy, which is also codified in Hong Kong’s Basic Law (the closest thing it has to a constitution), in practice, the line between the two systems has become blurrier, with the Chinese government in Beijing attempting to exert more control.

I think the problem with that agreement was the term “autonomy” for HK had a very loose definition such that the British and Hong Kong understanding of it was very different from China’s.

To Britain and HK, autonomy meant that the Citizens of HK could DIRECTLY choose their governor REGARDLESS of whether China approved of the person or not.

To China, it meant something different. The Chicoms meant this: We give you several people THAT WE APPROVE OF to choose from as your governor ( Also knoen as Chief Executive) and the people do not directly vote for whoever the governor will be. Their representatives ( which we, the party, also have to approve of ) will be the ones to choose for you.

The Joint Declaration and Hong Kong’s Basic Law say that Hong Kong is supposed to administer itself. But the arrangement also gives China the power to appoint Hong Kong’s chief executive, “on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally.”

Here’s how that works in practice: An election committee, currently of about 1,200 people, votes and selects the chief executive, who serves a five-year term. The catch? The committee is stocked with Beijing loyalists, which means whoever wins is more or less the candidate Beijing wants to win.

But Hong Kong’s Basic Law goes a bit further, and says that the “ultimate aim” is to elect the chief executive through “universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee.”

For pro-democracy activists, this means one person, one vote. Beijing said in 2007 that it would grant universal suffrage in 2017. But in 2014, Beijing said, sure, you can have universal suffrage, but the candidates have to be chosen by a nominating committee. Oh, and China gets to pick who’s on that committee.

Now you can sort of see where the problem is at this point, If Beijing can control who gets nominated that isn’t going to result in any meaningful choice.

So, we’re stuck with this problem.

The question Pat Buchanan is asking is this — Should we even get involved in this mess? I believe Pat wants to say NO but doesn’t directly say it in his article.

RE: The entire world should put pressure on China. Why just us?

Ahh. here’s the problem. China is challenging the USA in terms of global power and influence and many countries are beholden to China today.

China has this Belt and Road Initiative, an ambitious programme to connect China, Asia with Africa and Europe via land and maritime networks along six corridors with the aim of improving regional integration, increasing trade and stimulating economic growth. This is like re-making the ancient silk road and maritime silk road connecting East and West.

It is a global development strategy adopted by the Chinese government involving infrastructure development and investments in 152 countries and international organizations in Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and the Americas.

With this, China, flushed with cash, uses DEBT to fund infrastructure development everywhere to create goodwill among these countries towards her ( with of course, the unstated goal of WEAKENING America’s worldwide influence, and even CONTROLLING a country’s resources should they be unable to repay their debts ).

So, many nations, which do want to develop, are INDEBTED to China. With this, they are NOT going to bother China with such internal issues as Hong Kong.

Only developed countries like the USA, the UK, Canada, Japan, Australia and Germany are going to be bothered with Hong Kong. The rest, I’m afraid, couldn’t care less.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.