As our city of sorrows stumbles towards a scarily uncertain future, pundits abroad are assigning blame and speculating about calamities that may lie ahead of us. Some of their writing is thought-provoking. Here is a sampling of excerpts.
George Magnus writing in georgemagnus.com:
Most people have rightly concluded that; at best the end of “one country, two systems” will be hastened; all the sooner, if protests don’t fade away as they did after the 2014 Occupy movement…
The Chinese Communist Party’s mission is to rule unchallenged. It cannot tolerate anti-China or democracy protests in Hong Kong without looking weak. It is therefore only a question of time before a heavy clampdown in Hong Kong. This may take the form of greater restrictions on and tighter controls in Hong Kong, if the protests fade, or more dramatic intervention, if not. For Beijing, Hong Kong’s financial and commercial advantages are a price worth paying for if the alternative is a threat to the Party’s rule.
Jamil Anderlini in The Financial Times:
Extreme inequality, unaffordability of housing and a huge influx of residents and visitors from the mainland are all contributing factors to the eruption. As many as one million people out of a population of 7.4 million are recent arrivals to Hong Kong from the mainland.
One of the most striking things about recent turmoil has been the almost complete absence of Hong Kong’s normally loquacious tycoons… They can not afford to offend either the hand that feeds them in Beijing (land grants in Hong Kong and investments in China) or the masses they live off in Hong Kong.
Prior to the Hand-Over, the Chinese government also sought alliances with triad organised crime groups that flourished in the colony and were told they would be tolerated as long as they remained “patriotic”. This unsavoury history has fed public suspicion that gangs of triads attacking protests in some districts in recent weeks were secretly encouraged by Beijing.
The chances of Mr Xi deciding to send in the People’s Liberation Army are rising by the day and I suspect are already higher than 50 per cent. After an initial ban on reports of the protests, the Communist Party propaganda department has now ordered mainland media to flood the zone with reports emphasising the violence of protestors and the supposed role of ” hostile foreign forces”. This portentous language is clearly setting the scene for an eventual intervention if the protests continue.
Minxin Pei in The Globe and Mail:
A Tiananmen-style crackdown is not the answer. For starters, Hong Kong’s 31,000-strong police force lacks the manpower and its officers may refuse to to use deadly force; after all there is a big difference between firing rubber bullets at a crowd and potentially murdering citizens. (Minxin wrote this means the CCP would have to deploy the PLA.)
Hong Kong’s residents would almost certainly treat Chinese government forces as invaders and mount the fiercest possible resistance. The resulting clashes would mark the official end of the “one country, two systems” arrangement with China’s government forced to assert direct and full control over Hong Kong’s administration.
With the Hong Kong Government’s legitimacy destroyed, the city would become ungovernable. Civil servants would quit their jobs in droves and the public would continue to resist. Hong Kong’s complex transit, communications and logistics systems would prove easy targets for defiant locals determined to cause major disruptions.
If Chinese soldiers storm the city, an immediate exodus of expats and elites with foreign passports and green cards will follow, and Western business will relocate en masse to other Asian commercial hubs. Hong Kong’s economy — a critical bridge between China and the rest of the world — would almost instantly collapse.
When there are no good options, leaders must choose the least bad one. China’s government may loathe the idea of making concessions to the Hong Kong protestors, but considering the catastrophic consequences of a military crackdown, that is what it must do.
Wall Street Journal Opinion column:
The Government is the real provocateur. The protests began in June when the Legislative Council tied to ram through an (extradition) bill… Police have responded to the protests with hundreds of arrests and increasing brutality.
Hong Kong’s cause should be the free world’s, which is why Mr Trump’s failure to speak against a Chinese crackdown is inexplicable. An invasion of Hong Kong would violate China’s treaty with Britain and poison US-China relations for months or years. It would also open Mr Trump to criticism from Democrats that his failure to speak up for Hong Kong gave a green light to Mr Xi. This is a case where China’s President needs blunt candour, not familiar Trumpian flattery.
The Guardian editorial:
The UN human rights office has urged the Hong Kong Government to launch an inquiry after reviewing what it calls credible evidence of police employed these kind of weapons (teargas in a MTR station, a woman hit in the eye with a beanbag round) in ways that are prohibited by international norms and standards, “creating a considerable risk of death or serious injury”. The use of undercover police has fueled suspicion of provocateurs.
While the leaderless quality of the movement may offer flexibility and resilience, it also makes it far harder to channel. The protestors are far more sophisticated, politically astute, informed and connected than 1989’s students — they have grown up with a lively civil society and strong traditions of protest and free expression, the very things they want to protect from Beijing’s encroachments.
The Communist Party does not want to marr the celebrations of its 70th year in power on 1 October. But if the protests show no sign of ebbing by then, might it decide that it is better to act sooner rather than later? … The behaviour of a small minority does not justify a ruthless response to the movement as a whole.
Be the first to comment