The international news channels the last few days have been full of the crowds of hundreds of thousands of young people in Hong Kong - except of course on the China state-run CCTV where the subject was barely mentioned. All 'revolutions' have to have a colour or symbol - this was the 'umbrella' revolution, in contrast with the ill-fated orange, rose and other movements. The umbrellas of course were also practical in warding off police pepper spray and tear gas, as well as guarding against Hong Kong's stormy weather.
Many people may have been surprised that such mass dissent is allowed in China. The answer is course is that Hong Kong is a (very) special Administrative Area. For nearly 100 years it had been a British colony, an unsustainable situation with the rise of China as a global power, but when the territory was handed back to China in 1997, it was under a rather strange agreement of "one country, two systems", which meant that Hong Kong was allowed a degree of economic and political independence not enjoyed or even dreamt of on the 'mainland'.
China has honoured this agreement surprisingly well, appointing a 'chief executive' for Hong Kong but otherwise allowing the territory to do its own thing - it is after all the financial centre of China. Until now?
The present street demonstrations are about electoral procedure in Hong Kong - a universal suffrage electrion was agree for 2017, but candidates had to be per-screened by Beijing, This is what the first demonstrations were about, but the arguments have shifted, and now the demand is for the Beijing appointed chief executive to step down.
Slightly older people, at least older than students, will remember Tienanmen square of 1989, when, in the midst of the meltdown of most of the soviet block states, many hoped that China would evolve also into a free democracy. The immense square was full of thousands of excited people, waving banners and holding a white statue of the 'lady of liberty' aloft. The authorities seemed to be tolerating the demonstrations. Then, late one evening, the tanks rolled in. Hundreds, maybe thousands were killed (it will never be known) and the democracy movement was crushed.
The scenes in Hong Kong are now ominously reminiscent of Beijing 25 years ago. Could the central Chinese government crack down again? China is a very different place now - 25 years ago it was an emerging giant, but a largely unknown wild card in international politics, and with its huge economic potential as yet unrealised. Now it is the world's second largest economy, and the United States' largest creditor, a prediction that would have seemed fantastical in 1989. China places supreme importance, on order, conformance and stability, but will it crack down again? The eyes of the world are upon Hong Kong. Normally, China does not care what the rest of the world thinks, and has zero tolerance for any inference in its domestic affairs, but does it have too much to lose this time, economically and politically?
Last night, it was feared that things would come to a head - an irresistible force meeting the immovable object of Beijing. The demonstrators gave an ultimatum for the chief executive to step down - of course he did not, but instead offered talks with the student leaders (with his deputy!) - probably the most he could offer them, but as of this morning apparently enough to split the demonstrators slightly between moderates and hard-liners, and the situation seems to be defused to some extent.
Meanwhile did the government (either Beijing or Hong Kong) either make concessions or send in the tanks? It did neither - it 'encouraged' gangs of anti protestors, aka hired thugs, to break up at least some of the demonstrations.
The mainland communist party of course will tolerate nothing which might threaten its absolute grip on power. The main achievement of the demonstrators is that they succeeded in holding their protest, over many days, disrupting daily life in one of the world's most expensive business districts, and showing that mental independence is still very much alive on Chinese territory.
No comments:
Post a Comment