Hong Kong
I have every possible sympathy for the protesters in Hong Kong. In 1997, when Britain returned sovereignty of the island to China (following the expiration of a 99 year lease), I thought Britain was wrong not to grant asylum to every Hong Kong citizen who wanted to immigrate to England. This could, theoretically, have led to a flood several million non-English speaking people into the United Kingdom, and I can see the problems (not all that difficult to anticipate) if that had happened. I thought Britain had a responsibility to those people who had been born and raised as British subjects not to turn them over to Chinese despotism. I wonder how people on the Left would feel about such a situation today. In general, they seem to support unlimited admission of asylum seekers, although only those who can find their own way into Westerns nations by walking or other means (I haven't seen any suggestions that we should fly those who live in the shadow of poverty and civil war from Nigeria or Sudan, for instance). I don't think there can be a consistent argument against it from their side. Ironically, it is conservatives who are now joking about trading Hong Kong's democratic protesters (who often wave the American flag as a symbol of their desire for freedom) for those in the U.S. who don't value our flag, our culture, and our values. No indication from the Left how all these supposed racists on the Right would be willing to accept ethnic Chinese into America.
All that is secondary, however, because Britain didn't allow unlimited immigration, and America is not going to get those Hong Kong natives, alone or in exchange for unpatriotic Americans. So the likelihood is that China will destroy Hong Kong's special status and incorporate it into the rest of their autocratic state. They may do it now; they may do it later, after other people have ceased to pay attention; they may do it gradually, over a period of time. One way or the other, I think it is inevitable, and I thought so in 1997. I couldn't then see a way that a superpower with over a billion people was going to allow an island of a few million to enjoy special rules indefinitely. This is a country that has not accepted the existence of Taiwan, historically a part of China, even though it has been independent for three-quarters of a century. The idea that they would actually allow Hong Kong a practical independence under their nominal sovereignty is inconceivable to me.
I hope I am wrong. But it is hard to see what the people in Hong Kong could do to stop them, and I hardly think the other countries of the world are going to punish China in any meaningful way even if they crack down on the protestors violently. Military action is out of the question. Economic sanctions are the only real choice, but it is an entirely different matter to sanction the world's most population nation and one of its largest economies than to sanction South Africa, Israel, or Iran. Any state that is willing to violate an embargo would gain an immense benefit of trading with China, so I doubt that any embargo could stand the test of time.
One final point. Everyone in the West seems united in supporting the Hong Kong protestors. I wonder how many of these people are staunch anti-imperialists as well. Those who are should remember that Hong Kong has the degree of freedom it does because it was ruled by an imperial power for 150 years. If Hong Kong had never been a British possession, it would be in the exact same state as Beijing or Zhengzhou or any of countless other Chinese cities: ruled by an autocratic government with no respect for democracy or human rights.
All that is secondary, however, because Britain didn't allow unlimited immigration, and America is not going to get those Hong Kong natives, alone or in exchange for unpatriotic Americans. So the likelihood is that China will destroy Hong Kong's special status and incorporate it into the rest of their autocratic state. They may do it now; they may do it later, after other people have ceased to pay attention; they may do it gradually, over a period of time. One way or the other, I think it is inevitable, and I thought so in 1997. I couldn't then see a way that a superpower with over a billion people was going to allow an island of a few million to enjoy special rules indefinitely. This is a country that has not accepted the existence of Taiwan, historically a part of China, even though it has been independent for three-quarters of a century. The idea that they would actually allow Hong Kong a practical independence under their nominal sovereignty is inconceivable to me.
I hope I am wrong. But it is hard to see what the people in Hong Kong could do to stop them, and I hardly think the other countries of the world are going to punish China in any meaningful way even if they crack down on the protestors violently. Military action is out of the question. Economic sanctions are the only real choice, but it is an entirely different matter to sanction the world's most population nation and one of its largest economies than to sanction South Africa, Israel, or Iran. Any state that is willing to violate an embargo would gain an immense benefit of trading with China, so I doubt that any embargo could stand the test of time.
One final point. Everyone in the West seems united in supporting the Hong Kong protestors. I wonder how many of these people are staunch anti-imperialists as well. Those who are should remember that Hong Kong has the degree of freedom it does because it was ruled by an imperial power for 150 years. If Hong Kong had never been a British possession, it would be in the exact same state as Beijing or Zhengzhou or any of countless other Chinese cities: ruled by an autocratic government with no respect for democracy or human rights.
Comments
Post a Comment