“It’s as if they had occupied SoHo”
When I called my brother Dylan last fall for help on my final paper in Wally Levis’ “Money and Morals” class, he hung up and texted me the cell phone of a close friend, an exchange student from Hong Kong. In that one night of teaching me the basics of supply and demand, fungibles and commodities and vertically and horizontally integrated corporations, a new friendship began. Even though we lived 3,000 miles away from each other, we became virtual brothers. Right now, my Hong Kong finance mentor is an eyewitness to the current confrontation between Xi Jinping’s authoritarian tendencies and Hong Kong’s democratic inclinations.
While Americans are watching their own images of police and demonstrators, some are perplexed by what’s happening in Hong Kong. To make better sense of the two situations, I reached out to Dr. Jerry Blaney, who teaches the “Pacific Perspectives” history elective and the “Modern World History” survey class. Moreover, before coming to Fieldston, Dr. Blaney researched and published on the history of policing, which provided him with some insights about law and order, protests and politics.
“While both protests fall under the broad umbrella of human rights and include issues of police brutality,” Dr. Blaney said, “there are important differences as well. The most obvious is the absence of a racial dimension. The second is the fundamentally divergent worldviews between the Hong Kongese protestors and the Communist government in Beijing. For the protestors, they view their home as an international city that respects universal values, including democratic rights. For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Hong Kong’s special status is a reminder of China’s ‘Century of Humiliation,’ when foreign powers like the British were able to extract important concessions from the Manchu Empire, which ruled China at that time. From this point of view, the democratic freedoms valued by many Hong Kongese are seen as “Western” values. As such, for the CCP, the full reintegration of Hong Kong into the mainland system is part of a key historic duty: the ‘reunification’ of all those lands deemed ‘Chinese’ by Beijing.”
A quick glance at Jonathan Spence’s Quest for Modern China, or a quick conversation with Dr. Blaney, will tell you that historically Hong Kong has long been under some form of “occupation,” dating back to the Opium War of 1839-1842. Hong Kong was an island off the mainland that became the focal point for the British Empire that lasted from 1842-1997. Even today, one observer noted, the “street signs are still in English and the buses are the same as those in London.” This imperialist product also became a major force in modern world economics. While mainland China became communist during Mao’s revolution in 1949, Hong Kong was poised for rapid economic growth and eventually democratic institutions. Suddenly, in the midst of the Cold War, Western ideas of freedom and entrepreneurship were plentiful as Hong Kong exploded financially, becoming a link between western markets and lucrative eastern economies –– earning it the nickname “The Gateway to the East.”
But the Cold War came to an end. Nixon visited China. The United States argued before the United Nations that the People’s Republic of China should become a member state, and the growing Chinese market became both a lure for foreign capital and cheap labor. According to Dr. Blaney, “Hong Kong’s unique status –– with its rule of law and market economy –– was seen as an asset to both China and foreign interests. Hong Kong would thus serve as a safe entryway for foreign direct investment into China. Indeed, at that time, Hong Kong represented a significant chunk of China’s GDP. China intentionally weaned itself off from Hong Kong’s dependence as its own economy grew. In 1993, Hong Kong accounted for 27% of the Chinese economy. In 2018, Hong Kong accounts for less than 3%. That’s quite a drastic drop in a relatively short period of time. The fact that Hong Kong accounts for much less of the Chinese GDP means that Xi Jinping can take these political moves against Hong Kong without harming the Chinese economy as a whole.”
After the establishment of the Basic Law –– Hong Kong’s form of a constitution –– it was assumed that the central government in Beijing would respect the political rights enshrined in it until 2047. This assumption has been assaulted by China since 1997, even before the ink on the treaty with the British dried. For three decades there have been waves of protests in opposition to China’s autocratic efforts to absorb Hong Kong. The most recent has been the “Umbrella Movement,” led by then seventeen year-old student activist Joshua Wong, who has since become a leading pro-democracy politician in Hong Kong.
Originally the protests stemmed from an Extradition Bill that many suspected would allow China to arrest and prosecute dissenting Hong Kongese citizens who were pivotal to the Communist Party and its leader Xi.
When asked about the Extradition Bill, Dr. Blaney explained that “the stated inspiration for the Extradition Bill was a murder committed in Taiwan. A Hong Kongese couple went to Taiwan on a trip, during which the boyfriend gruesomely murdered his girlfriend and returned to Hong Kong. Since Taiwan and Hong Kong do not have an extradition treaty, the Taiwanese government couldn’t ask the Hong Kongese government to extradite him back to Taiwan so that he could be prosecuted. Since the crime occurred in Taiwan, he couldn’t be prosecuted in Hong Kong itself. To close this loophole, the Chinese government pressured its counterparts in Hong Kong to pass this Extradition Bill –– since China already claims sovereignty over Taiwan (which it doesn’t have in reality, it should be noted), Beijing argued that Chinese authorities could prosecute the boyfriend for the murder –– since, in their eyes, Taiwan is a province of China. Nonetheless, that is not how many Hong Kong citizens viewed the bill. For them, Beijing was using this horrible murder as a pretext to create a different kind of loophole in which to charge political dissenters in Hong Kong with ‘crimes’ and have them extradited to the mainland to face Chinese courts.”
This Extradition Bill was met with a flood of over 2 million protesters (about a third of the region’s population.) The protesters demanded sweeping changes to fully democratize Hong Kong and protect it from Chinese political influence. During these protests, my friend was able to witness many of the blockades, and clashes between police and protesters. For his own safety, he has chosen to remain nameless. He is an eye-witness to the manic reality of a city thrown into crisis.
Although never directly affiliated with the movement, he has observed much of the action during the height of the protests. He told me that “[Chinese influence] has been more passive than there was at the time during the protests,” more like a steady undercurrent rather than a flood. According to him, much of the Western media’s portrayal of Hong Kong is as a city besieged and tormented by the Chinese occupying forces. However, my friend corrected that notion and stated that the infiltration is more subtle.
Many of his friends told him: “There was a time during the protest where Hong Kong police officers were speaking Mandarin.” This caused much controversy and alarm because they speak Cantonese in Hong Kong, whereas Mandarin is the dominant language of mainland China. Accordingly, when the officers and auxiliary forces began speaking Mandarin, it presented indisputable evidence that China was sending forces from the mainland to silence the protests. This didn’t stop the protesters however, they continued to block roads leading in and out of the city.
One of these was a road that led under the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. This resulted in a massive siege and multi-day ordeal. The protesters built weapons to fight and fend off the attacks from the police. Thirteen days later the siege ended in tragedy when students were rounded up and arrested. Like a scene from “Les Mis,” those who were able to escape fled into the sewers. Some were hospitalized and subsequently arrested by the police.
This prompted the Chinese government to continue its influence on Hong Kong. According to Dr. Blaney, “the fundamental problem is that Hong Kong has lost much of its previous economic leverage and Beijing has little reason to not continue to press its political interests in Hong Kong. No amount of local resistance could stop Beijing from fully occupying Hong Kong and dismantling its autonomous structure. In fact, the move probably would be very popular in the rest of China, who tend to resent the Hong Kongese and their sense of ‘entitlement’ to freedoms not enjoyed on the mainland.”
Dr. Blaney continued: “Arguably the only two things preventing such a crack down are 1) the fact that Hong Kong is still an important financial center for China, and 2) the world is watching. While the Chinese economy arguably could weather the loss of some foreign capital based in Hong Kong, it doesn’t want another ‘Tiananmen Square’ event being broadcasted across the globe. The latter would damage China’s carefully constructed, yet still fragile, image in multiple ways, and ways that are likely to hurt China’s economic and political interests more gravely.”
“Most Hong Kongese are aware of all of the above,” Dr. Blaney noted. “That is why they have striven to keep the world watching. But they are in a difficult situation. They can’t resist forever, Beijing will continue to press its interests in Hong Kong, and the world will eventually stop paying attention. British and U.S warships will not arrive in Hong Kong Harbor to enforce the Basic Law. The Hong Kongese also realize this, which is why these latest protests have had outbursts of violence and vandalism: there is a deep sense of angst and frustration amongst activists, particularly younger ones.”
The movement which started as a grassroots opposition, also ran alongside the challenge of the coronavirus, which hindered the ability to organize massive public protests. Protests continue, but it is unclear how long they will be able to sustain themselves in the face of determined governmental opposition. They might fall victim to the same fate as the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations a few years ago in New York, whose spontaneous beginnings failed the test of time: without stronger leadership to bring together and organize the population, resistance would fray.
Now, after over two hundred years of shifting political ties, occupations and revolutions, the gateway to the east appears to be closing.
