Hong Kong Umbrella Movement: Positions and Perspectives on the Crisis
In early July, People’s Daily published an article titled “Uphold Hong Kong self-rule, with patriot as the principal agent.” Arguing that ‘love of nation’ and ‘love of Hong Kong’ are not mutually exclusive, it states that Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must be ruled in a way that benefits Greater China. Unbeknownst to People’s Daily readers, the Chinese government was slowly but surely accentuating the ‘one country’ aspect of its “one country, two systems” policy in Hong Kong.
Reaching its climax on October 1st, China’s National Day, the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong has brought different generations of people together, and the city of Hong Kong to a screeching halt. The protests were triggered by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee’s announcement on August 31st that chief executive candidates would be ‘elected’ by nominating committee of 1,200 people. The chief executive would then be elected through one person, one vote - a supposedly democratic process.
An irony emerges - the nominating committee is aligned with those who have nominated and elected previous pro-Beijing chief executives, meaning that even with supposedly universal suffrage, the people’s choices are limited to pro-Beijing candidates. Here lies the source of Hong Kong’s woes and frustration; despite Beijing’s attempts at reforms, it fails to grasp the sense of civic duty placed on the city’s people to elect chief executives for Hong Kong, not for China.
Beijing currently argues that the recent decision does not violate the principle of universal suffrage and does not negate the 2007 government ruling that chief executives be chosen by universal suffrage. The prevailing opinion in Hong Kong has been skeptical; many believe the ruling provided a leeway for the Chinese government to continue exercising absolute control over subsequent nominations.
The Umbrella Movement, resisting Beijing’s commitment to restricted electoral change, have demanded that the chief executive be elected through a transparent, democratic vote. It has vowed to secure Hong Kong people’s fundamental right indicated in Article 5 of Basic Law that “socialist system and policies shall not be practiced in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”
The umbrellas became the symbol of this movement when they were used by protestors as protection against tear gases hurled at them. The movement was launched by Hong Kong student activist group Scholarism on September 26th, and gained momentum as Occupy Central, a non-violence campaign led by University of Hong Kong Law Professor, joined the students. With Hong Kong as the epicenter, protests also took place around the world, including Washington DC, New York, and London.
The Chinese government, however, is unwilling to budge. By classifying Occupy Central as illegal, the Party has legitimized its violent action against the protesters, even claiming that “to use legal methods to handle illegal actions is the best defense of the law and is also a powerful defense of democracy.”
As the movement spread, a pro-Beijing faction has also emerged in Hong Kong, armed with blue ribbons. One man said, “I support the police protecting the rule of law in Hong Kong, which is fair and just. Hong Kong cannot lose respect for law and order.” Victor Gao, vice chairman of Sino-Europe United Investment Corporation, also said “Hong Kong is part of China and will remain so, forever, in perpetuity. That’s not going to change. And the chief executive of Hong Kong needs to swear allegiance to China, and loyalty to China. That’s not going to change. Anyone think that will change is indulged in fantasy.”
For many in Hong Kong, however, the current situation has them to believe that the government does not exist for the people, but for China. The government has shown no signs of resolving conflict through communication. The government is even suspected of cooperating with the triad who were known to have attacked protesters protesting peacefully.
The Umbrella Movement also highlights concerns on Hong Kong’s economy. Hong Kong’s elites believe that “the more interference there is from China, the more dangerous it is for Hong Kong’s long-term [economic] role.” Since its return to China, Hong Kong, unlike other mainland cities, continued to enjoy economic liberalism. The stability of municipal institutions made Hong Kong a very attractive city for foreign investments and international business. Yet, as more control is imposed on Hong Kong, protestors fear that the city is losing its merit.
For Beijing, on the other hand, any voice against the government must be muted, especially those coming from controversial region, such as, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and Tibet. A rebellious group tends to incite another. These will only bring chaos to the state, leading Beijing to further lose its legitimacy as a world leader. In the words of Confucius, to rule the country, one must manage family matters well (修身齐家治国平天下). In the same way, for China to claim its power in the world, it must rule the country well. Hong Kong protest will therefore have to be oppressed.
So far, the United States and United Kingdom has not taken any significant action due to China’s firm stance on the issue. On September 29th, United Kingdom Ministry of Foreign Affairs read that “it is Britain’s longstanding position that Hong Kong’s prosperity and security are underpinned by its fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right to demonstrate.” On the same day, UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg tweeted, “universal suffrage must mean real choice for the people of Hong Kong and a proper stake in the 2017 election.” In both cases, China quickly reacted. On both September 29th and 30th, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson set forth that “Hong Kong affairs are purely China’s internal affairs” and that “any relevant country should not intervene in Hong Kong affairs through any means nor should they send out any wrong signal.”
The U.S. also seems to have refrained from publicly or officially discussing the issue after Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi explicit statement made during Secretary of State John Kerry’s remarks with Foreign Minister Yi before their meeting on October 1st. Secretary Kerry stated that “we support universal suffrage in Hong Kong accordant with the Basic Law, and we believe in open society with the highest possible degree of autonomy and governed by rule of law is essential for Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity.” Foreign Minister Yi confronted Secretary Kerry’s claim by retorting “Hong Kong affairs are China’s internal affairs. All countries should respect China’s sovereignty. And this is also a basic principle governing international relations.”
It seems that Umbrella Movement may not generate any concrete systematic change in Hong Kong any time soon. It is very likely that the Chinese government will, despite public protests, refuse to implement electoral reform in Hong Kong. However, the Umbrella Movement is a phenomenon to be reckoned with; Hong Kong was united and determined to fight for an idea that is seldom spoken of, let alone contested. Perhaps “love of Hong Kong” is all they need.