I’ve been wanting to speak for a few weeks about the upcoming change of government in Hong Kong, but I’ve been struggling with it, unsure of what to say. Like many things that confront us in the late 20th century, there are no clear and easy answers. In less than two weeks, Great Britain will relinquish control of its crown colony to the People’s Republic of China. In one sense, this is clearly the right thing to do. The British seized Hong Kong from China a century and a half ago in an act of gunboat colonialism. It is long since time that the sun set on this particular part of the British Empire. The problem is that Hong Kong is being turned over to the People’s Republic. If it was just land, I wouldn’t care, but what is to become of the four million people who live there? I feel the same kind of dread in my stomach that I feel when I read in the newspaper that a court has awarded custody to a legal, but potentially abusive parent.
For their part, the Chinese communist government has promised to run Hong Kong under a plan they call “one country, two systems,” which is supposed to mean that while Beijing will be in charge, people in Hong Kong are supposed to believe they will be allowed more economic, cultural and political freedom than the rest of China. We’ll see how it works out. It seems odd, on the face of it, that the portion of political freedom allotted to a citizen is primarily dependent on geography. It raises my hackles to think about it, but I have to admit we have a “one country, two systems” plan going on right here in the United States. One system if you’re rich and another if you’re poor. One system if you’re black and another if you’re white. One if you’re a man and one if you’re a woman. We have all sorts of different systems here, it’s just that nobody is writing about them on the editorial pages.
Another paradox I find in the handover of Hong Kong is that with the imminence of Chinese communist rule, Hong Kong has become everyone’s favorite outcrop of democracy. Hong Kong has never been, nor was it ever intended to be, anything other than a cashbox for Great Britain and now for the People’s Republic. Hong Kong’s civil liberties look good compared to China’s. If you want to appear tall, stand in a crowd of short people. There’s no doubt Beijing will revoke some of Hong Kong’s liberties after July first. I’ve been disheartened in the past few weeks to read that Hong Kong newspapers are already firing their most acerbic and opinionated writers. To give in to the insidious power of self-censorship will only – I think – invite deeper repression when the new boss arrives. I was further disheartened to read in the New York Times that Hong Kong businessmen are worried that the United States will “over-react” to the arrest of “minor” protesters or “modest” repression. The Times didn’t define what it means by “minor” protesters or “modest” repression.
I was encouraged to see that on the anniversary of Tianamen Square this month, tens of thousands of Hong Kongese filled the streets to remind Beijing and the world that they – the citizens – have not forgotten their human rights, or the human rights of their new countrymen. I wish them well in the days ahead and hope they will carry a gift of freedom with them as they enter China.
So Long, Hong Kong
I’ve been wanting to speak for a few weeks about the upcoming change of government in Hong Kong, but I’ve been struggling with it, unsure of what to say. Like many things that confront us in the late 20th century, there are no clear and easy answers. In less than two weeks, Great Britain will relinquish control of its crown colony to the People’s Republic of China. In one sense, this is clearly the right thing to do. The British seized Hong Kong from China a century and a half ago in an act of gunboat colonialism. It is long since time that the sun set on this particular part of the British Empire. The problem is that Hong Kong is being turned over to the People’s Republic. If it was just land, I wouldn’t care, but what is to become of the four million people who live there? I feel the same kind of dread in my stomach that I feel when I read in the newspaper that a court has awarded custody to a legal, but potentially abusive parent.
For their part, the Chinese communist government has promised to run Hong Kong under a plan they call “one country, two systems,” which is supposed to mean that while Beijing will be in charge, people in Hong Kong are supposed to believe they will be allowed more economic, cultural and political freedom than the rest of China. We’ll see how it works out. It seems odd, on the face of it, that the portion of political freedom allotted to a citizen is primarily dependent on geography. It raises my hackles to think about it, but I have to admit we have a “one country, two systems” plan going on right here in the United States. One system if you’re rich and another if you’re poor. One system if you’re black and another if you’re white. One if you’re a man and one if you’re a woman. We have all sorts of different systems here, it’s just that nobody is writing about them on the editorial pages.
Another paradox I find in the handover of Hong Kong is that with the imminence of Chinese communist rule, Hong Kong has become everyone’s favorite outcrop of democracy. Hong Kong has never been, nor was it ever intended to be, anything other than a cashbox for Great Britain and now for the People’s Republic. Hong Kong’s civil liberties look good compared to China’s. If you want to appear tall, stand in a crowd of short people. There’s no doubt Beijing will revoke some of Hong Kong’s liberties after July first. I’ve been disheartened in the past few weeks to read that Hong Kong newspapers are already firing their most acerbic and opinionated writers. To give in to the insidious power of self-censorship will only – I think – invite deeper repression when the new boss arrives. I was further disheartened to read in the New York Times that Hong Kong businessmen are worried that the United States will “over-react” to the arrest of “minor” protesters or “modest” repression. The Times didn’t define what it means by “minor” protesters or “modest” repression.
I was encouraged to see that on the anniversary of Tianamen Square this month, tens of thousands of Hong Kongese filled the streets to remind Beijing and the world that they – the citizens – have not forgotten their human rights, or the human rights of their new countrymen. I wish them well in the days ahead and hope they will carry a gift of freedom with them as they enter China.