Judging from the wider context of the conflict and the current relations between Washington and Beijing, one may easily come to the conclusion that Hong Kong has become collateral damage in the growing rivalry between the two countries, writes Nelson Wong, Vice Chairman of the Shanghai Centre for RimPac and International Studies.
While the recent passing of the National Security Law has empowered the Hong Kong government to restore peace and stability in this special administrative region of China, the unwanted involvement of the US under the Trump administration in the affairs of Hong Kong continues to increase, despite repeated appeals made by the Chinese government to the US. These routine, hypocritical attacks against China over the issue of Hong Kong are clear proof of blatant interference by the US government into China’s domestic affairs, and the unilateral measures the US government has taken, such as the restriction of its export of “sensitive equipment and technology” to Hong Kong, are nothing more than diplomatic one-upmanship masquerading as a battle of ideology. Is Hong Kong then, as many pundits claim, simply collateral damage in the on-going conflict between the US and China? The story of Hong Kong and its recent descent into near-anarchy must always be understood in the context of its complicated history.
Hong Kong, a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China, has been capturing the headlines for almost a year due to the precarious on-going situation that started with protests against the proposed passing of an extradition law by the local legislative council, which quickly developed into an unrelenting wave of street violence, fuelled in large part by dormant anti-China sentiment that suddenly became legitimised, in the name of “democracy”. To prevent the situation from escalating and to restore law and order, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (“NPCSC”) in Beijing passed the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in Hong Kong (“National Security Law”) on June 30, 2020. It was added to Annex III of the Basic Law as part of the national laws that apply in Hong Kong.
Rather than supporting the Chinese government for its resolve to restore peace and stability in Hong Kong, the US government chose, unsurprisingly, to intervene on the side of the protestors. For years, China has confronted the US with hard evidence of the latter sending out incorrect messages to confuse the people of Hong Kong and urging it to stop meddling in China’s domestic affairs. Ignoring the repeated explanations China has provided to the US, the Trump administration went ahead and criticised the introduction of the National Security Law in Hong Kong. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman commented that the US’ accusations that China was abrogating Hong Kong’s autonomy are totally groundless in light of the facts and realities of Hong Kong.
Judging from the wider context of the conflict and the current relations between Washington and Beijing, one may easily come to the conclusion that Hong Kong has become collateral damage in the growing rivalry between the two countries.
However, a closer look into the recent history and development of Hong Kong reveals that the seemingly complicated situation is not, in reality, that complex. Indeed, Hong Kong has in recent years experienced considerable difficulties in adjusting and repositioning itself favourably in this ever-shifting new world order. A former British colony which was handed over to China on July 1, 1997, Hong Kong owed its economic success largely to the opening of China from the late 1970s after the Cultural Revolution, when it became the stepping stone for companies from all over the world to do business with China. During its heyday in the 1980s and 1990s, Hong Kong was proudly known as Asia’s world city and financial centre, rivalling New York and London. But times have irrevocably changed. With China now being the second largest economy and fully open to the rest of the world, Hong Kong has been left unmoored by the vastly diminished role it now plays as a bridge between the West and the East, and urgently needs to find a new identity in order to stay relevant.
China’s central government has committed itself to a declared state policy of continuing to permit Hong Kong to manage its own affairs, but that does not mean China does not care about the well-being of Hong Kong or that it has not provided any support to Hong Kong. On the contrary, ever since the handover in 1997, the central government of China has been encouraging and supporting the continued development of Hong Kong. The latest statistics show that 1,241 companies from Mainland China are now listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, which boasts a market capitalisation of China-related stocks reaching over HKD 27,953 billion (2019), and that more than 40 million tourists from the Mainland visit Hong Kong every year, amounting to three-quarters of all tourist arrivals in the city.
Showing its continued support for Hong Kong from a strategic planning perspective, the central government of China has unveiled plans for the development of the Greater Bay Area that includes Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao. This requires Hong Kong to proactively engage itself in developing corresponding strategies to further the economic growth of the city with the benefit of its unique strength and international standing, particularly in the areas of banking and financial services, legal and accounting practices, shipping and logistics services, tourism and the hospitality industry. An increasing number of people in Hong Kong and across the Mainland have come to realise and understand that blaming the Chinese government for the failure of Hong Kong to retain its economic prominence or developing a hatred towards Beijing and people from the Mainland is not only irrational and groundless, but also a non-starter.
On the subject of democracy and human rights, China has also openly announced its support for fostering the democratic process of Hong Kong in accordance with the Basic Law; it has given the Hong Kong government absolute authority to fulfil what it sees fit in this respect. What needs to be pointed out, however, is that democracy and electoral procedures were never an aspect of everyday life in Hong Kong when it was a British colony. Allowing Hong Kong to practice democratic elections and to be governed under the “One Country, Two Systems” policy with the Basic Law in place demonstrates the commitment of the Chinese government to let the people of Hong Kong enjoy more freedom and democracy than when they were under British rule. But that does not mean that Hong Kong can be allowed to become a base camp for anti-China activities, nor would China ever tolerate any attempts to separate Hong Kong from its motherland. To China, this is not a matter of pride, but a matter of principle.
Looking back at what has happened over the years, China could have done more to stop the situation in Hong Kong from deteriorating into what it is now. What might have been neglected or forgotten is that before the handover in 1997, Hong Kong was never governed by the local people, nor was it run by the Governor(s) alone. The entire British government was always there to consult and to approve when it came to trade policies, economic development, and by and large the overall governance of the then-“British Territory”. Having a team of professional and competent civil servants is one thing; the talent and experience of regional and state governance is quite another. Naturally, it would have been more constructive if the central government of China had taken a more engaging role in the strategic and development planning and management of Hong Kong and rendered more guidance and support to the Hong Kong government since day one. However, whilst the notion of “One Country, Two Systems” was conceptually visionary, in a practical sense, it encouraged inactivity because the principal was alien to the constitutional norm on the Mainland. So, with the world watching, a policy of masterly inactivity was probably agreed upon as being the safest bet. That said, it is never too late to make corrections.
In fact, what remains unresolved for Hong Kong is a fundamental structural change of its economy, which in turn requires the Hong Kong government to firstly understand the importance of strategic repositioning. Under the circumstances, the only plausible solution is to further strengthen its economic ties with the rapid development of the Mainland. That is where the future of Hong Kong lies.
What has happened in Hong Kong is a lesson to be learned by all stakeholders involved. The US government should realise that whatever “punitive measures” it is taking or plans to take against Hong Kong, they are harming the economy of Hong Kong and hence the lives of the people there, and that the American businesses operating in Hong Kong will also suffer collateral damages as a result. Despite its economic achievements over the last 40 years, we must remember that China is still a developing country, with its own unique baggage of problems and idiosyncrasies — this is simply the nature of human progress. With all due respect to the US, being the most powerful country on Earth, the people of China wonder why the US government believes it has the moral right to impose its own system and values on China. To the US, it is self-evident that all men are created equal, and endowed with an unalienable Right to Liberty, except when the form of liberty does not match their own. That is not Liberty, but Hegemony.
