Pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong yells as he is taken away by police Anthony Wallace/Getty Images

Keep Hong Kong Free

Hong Kong is a shining example of what Chinese men and women can achieve with the freedom that millions of others take for granted. Only if Hong Kong’s people are resolute in defending their freedom against Chinese government pressure can they hope to secure the "one country, two systems" they were promised.

HONG KONG – Visiting Hong Kong is a true pleasure. With its modern architecture towering around the busy harbor, that great and exciting city must rank among the world’s most enjoyable urban destinations. But Hong Kong is now under stress, as it finds itself at the center of a number of issues and challenges – including how best to balance economic and political freedom and how to engage with an increasingly assertive and ambitious China – that will define its prospects in the century ahead.

Fundamentally, Hong Kong’s prospects depend on the implementation of the “one country, two systems” principle, conceived by Deng Xiaoping to serve as the basis for Hong Kong’s eventual return to China in 1997. The idea – which Milton Friedman thought amounted to an impossible balancing act – was that Hong Kong would keep its way of life, liberties, and laws. Its people were perfectly capable of running their city; they simply had to do so as a part of China.

One country, two systems brilliantly balanced the aspirations, anxieties, and difficulties posed by the change in sovereignty from Britain to China. For China, there was the smarting humiliation of having ceded its own territory to a colonial power during the Qing dynasty. Imperialists from all over the world gave China a hard time, behaving in a way that no one today would or should seek to justify. Forcing China to open up to the opium trade formed one of the most disreputable chapters in Britain’s imperial history.

But what must have rankled the Chinese Communist Party most was that the colonial power had been so successful in building, with China’s own people in Hong Kong, a hugely prosperous and contented city – one that became a magnet for many Chinese men, women, and children. If Chinese communism was the wave of the future, why did so many flee from it, clambering over fences topped with razor wire and swimming through hazardous waters, to live under colonial rule?

On the British side, there were equally implacable challenges. Britain needed to determine how best to establish a constructive relationship with a China intent on weaponizing trade, while standing up for the rights and promised freedoms of Hong Kong’s people. In this respect, the handover raised essential and complex questions about political morality.

Just before I left Hong Kong in 1997, after departing from my post as the city’s last British governor, I visited a hospital for the mentally ill, where an in-patient asked me an eminently sane question. How, he wanted to know, could a country that prided itself on its deeply rooted democracy hand Hong Kong over to the world’s last big Communist tyranny, without asking its citizens for their opinion?

The World’s Opinion Page

Help support Project Syndicate’s mission

subscribe now

The answer is that such questions were never an option, if we were to fulfill our treaty obligations and avoid a catastrophic repeat of nineteenth-century colonialism. Yet we should certainly have done as much to introduce and entrench democratic institutions in Hong Kong as we did to secure the rule of law and the protection of civil liberties. One reason why we moved more slowly on democracy was that China’s leaders had made clear that they feared Hong Kong’s people would think the road was being cleared to become an independent state, like Singapore.

For the first few years after 1997, “one country, two systems” seemed to work pretty well, though China did break its promises by blocking democratic development. But more recently – and especially since 2012, when President Xi Jinping came to power – China has been tightening its grip on Hong Kong.

This is probably related to the government’s broader crackdown on dissidents; China’s growing economic heft, which makes an open Hong Kong seem less important to its future prosperity; and a lack of understanding of what Hong Kong’s system really means. The question now is whether “one country, two systems” will devolve into “one country, one and a half systems” or, worse, “one country, one system.”

There is no doubt that China has increasingly been interfering in Hong Kong’s domestic affairs. Most recently, concerns have focused on the treatment of some of the leaders of Hong Kong’s 2014 pro-democracy demonstrations: three of the city’s most influential activists were sentenced to up to eight months in prison for their activities, and have been prohibited from seeking public office for five years.

Three years may seem like a long time to wait before cracking the whip, but there is no doubt that Hong Kong’s judicial system has acted according to the law. The trouble is that the convictions have taken place against a background of fear and divisiveness, stoked by the Chinese government’s behavior.

China has, for example, attacked the independence of Hong Kong’s judiciary, with Rimsky Yuen, Secretary for Justice of Hong Kong, calling for the review of already-served sentences that he deems too lenient. And, even as officials like Yuen purport to be defending the rule of law, Chinese security operatives have apparently abducted Hong Kong residents, including several booksellers.

To ease fears and allow Hong Kong to move forward, three things are required. First, China must make clear through its actions that it can be trusted to keep its promises to Hong Kong. To help ensure that outcome, the international community should vigorously remind it of the broader ramifications of being viewed as an untrustworthy partner.

Second, democracy activists in Hong Kong should not allow their campaign for democracy to morph into a call for independence. For its part, the government should open a dialogue with them, characterized by mutual respect and transparency.

Finally, the people of Hong Kong should not give up hope, as the Chinese communists hope they will. If its people remain resolute in their commitment, Hong Kong will remain a great free city, choosing those who govern it under the rule of law.

Hong Kong is a shining example to the rest of the world about what Chinese men and women can achieve with the sort of freedom that millions of others take for granted. Its people must not – and, I believe, will not – give up on it.

http://prosyn.org/s5NF2iR;

Handpicked to read next

  1. Television sets showing a news report on Xi Jinping's speech Anthony Wallace/Getty Images

    Empowering China’s New Miracle Workers

    China’s success in the next five years will depend largely on how well the government manages the tensions underlying its complex agenda. In particular, China’s leaders will need to balance a muscular Communist Party, setting standards and protecting the public interest, with an empowered market, driving the economy into the future.

  2. United States Supreme Court Hisham Ibrahim/Getty Images

    The Sovereignty that Really Matters

    The preference of some countries to isolate themselves within their borders is anachronistic and self-defeating, but it would be a serious mistake for others, fearing contagion, to respond by imposing strict isolation. Even in states that have succumbed to reductionist discourses, much of the population has not.

  3.  The price of Euro and US dollars Daniel Leal Olivas/Getty Images

    Resurrecting Creditor Adjustment

    When the Bretton Woods Agreement was hashed out in 1944, it was agreed that countries with current-account deficits should be able to limit temporarily purchases of goods from countries running surpluses. In the ensuing 73 years, the so-called "scarce-currency clause" has been largely forgotten; but it may be time to bring it back.

  4. Leaders of the Russian Revolution in Red Square Keystone France/Getty Images

    Trump’s Republican Collaborators

    Republican leaders have a choice: they can either continue to collaborate with President Donald Trump, thereby courting disaster, or they can renounce him, finally putting their country’s democracy ahead of loyalty to their party tribe. They are hardly the first politicians to face such a decision.

  5. Angela Merkel, Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron John Thys/Getty Images

    How Money Could Unblock the Brexit Talks

    With talks on the UK's withdrawal from the EU stalled, negotiators should shift to the temporary “transition” Prime Minister Theresa May officially requested last month. Above all, the negotiators should focus immediately on the British budget contributions that will be required to make an orderly transition possible.

  6. Ksenia Sobchak Mladlen Antonov/Getty Images

    Is Vladimir Putin Losing His Grip?

    In recent decades, as President Vladimir Putin has entrenched his authority, Russia has seemed to be moving backward socially and economically. But while the Kremlin knows that it must reverse this trajectory, genuine reform would be incompatible with the kleptocratic character of Putin’s regime.

  7. Right-wing parties hold conference Thomas Lohnes/Getty Images

    Rage Against the Elites

    • With the advantage of hindsight, four recent books bring to bear diverse perspectives on the West’s current populist moment. 
    • Taken together, they help us to understand what that moment is and how it arrived, while reminding us that history is contingent, not inevitable


    Global Bookmark

    Distinguished thinkers review the world’s most important new books on politics, economics, and international affairs.

  8. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin Bill Clark/Getty Images

    Don’t Bank on Bankruptcy for Banks

    As a part of their efforts to roll back the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, congressional Republicans have approved a measure that would have courts, rather than regulators, oversee megabank bankruptcies. It is now up to the Trump administration to decide if it wants to set the stage for a repeat of the Lehman Brothers collapse in 2008.