Nobody's business but its own
By David Monyae and Emmanuel Matambo |
chinawatch.cn |
Updated: 2019-09-19 16:11
The protests in Hong Kong, now in their third month, must be an encouraging index of sovereign ambitions to China's detractors and competitors.
On the surface, the protests are a laudable crusade for democracy and an attempt to insulate Hong Kong from China's governance. It is also important to note that the "one country, two systems" pledge to which China committed itself after Hong Kong was handed over to it by the United Kingdom in 1997, forms part of the rationale for what the protesters argue is China's encroachment on Hong Kong's high-level autonomy.
To date, Hong Kong remains a crucial hub of global business; its reputation as a firm and scrupulous adherent to the rule of law has enhanced its appeal. Over the years, successive leaderships in Hong Kong have also successfully styled themselves as trustworthy. It is no wonder, then, that those who support the protests in Hong Kong have a Manichean interpretation of the continuing protests: It is a fight by the "honorable" against the "dishonorable" government. At the heart of the matter is politics.
Politics by nature, like any social terrain, is a consequence of historical factors whose destination is never certain. Political structures are steeped in history. People, as agents, shape history. The political future is also something that, even though it can be planned, has the potential to mutate into unforeseen eventualities that impose the necessity for tinkering with original plans.
Thus, China's position on what is happening in Hong Kong should be looked at from a historical perspective. The Island of Hong Kong was ceded to the British Crown in 1842, as inscribed in the Treaty of Nanking, signed under coercion by British warships. This forfeiture was a culmination of a humiliating period in China's political history at the hands of a foreign invader. The Opium War that led the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) to relinquish Hong Kong was a social and moral disaster for Chinese society; to the British, Chinese resistance to opium trade was encroachment on the tenets of free trade. This was a textbook illustration of capitalist voracity and its disregard for human dignity.
China's woes resulting from foreign domination did not end with the loss of Hong Kong. In the 20th century, Japan carried out one of the most wanton destructions of human life that Asia has ever experienced on Chinese soil.
When China contributed so much to the struggle against foreign domination, it did so with a keen understanding of its empirical experience of foreign domination. That is why China played a pivotal role in helping countries of the Third World to snap the shackles of colonial and minority bondage. It did so to the extent that almost appeared suicidal and masochistic; for example, China put up a generous loan of more than $400 million toward building the Tanzania-Zambia Railway (TAZARA). This commitment was made in the late 1960s when China's per capita GDP was lower than that of Sub-Saharan Africa. Indeed, up to 1978, China's per capita GDP was $156 while the average for Sub-Saharan Africa was $490.
China's contribution toward the sovereignty and self-reliance of the Third World partly explains its sensitivity over Hong Kong. It should not be forgotten that, even though Hong Kong, enjoys a massive level of autonomy it is not a sovereign country and is hence ultimately under the jurisdiction of the Chinese government. In the final analysis, it is only natural to expect China to be angered by foreign interference in the affairs of Hong Kong. Thus, China's position to what is happening in Hong Kong is deeply steeped in historical context and China's role in promoting sovereignty of nations, free of foreign interference.
It would be beneficial for people in Hong Kong, especially its youth, to understand the historical factors that underpin China's reluctance to adopt foreign-bred modes of rule and its antipathy to foreign encroachment, whether ideological or physical.
What China seeks from the rest of the world is understanding and respect rather than censure and criticism. It has shown its own obeisance to non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations. It expects a repayment of the favor as it seeks to resolve the conflict that has engulfed Hong Kong.
David Monyae is director of the Centre for Africa-China Studies at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa; Emmanuel Matambo is a senior research fellow at the institute.
The authors contributed this article to China Watch exclusively. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of China Watch.
All rights reserved. Copying or sharing of any content for other than personal use is prohibited without prior written permission.
The protests in Hong Kong, now in their third month, must be an encouraging index of sovereign ambitions to China's detractors and competitors.
On the surface, the protests are a laudable crusade for democracy and an attempt to insulate Hong Kong from China's governance. It is also important to note that the "one country, two systems" pledge to which China committed itself after Hong Kong was handed over to it by the United Kingdom in 1997, forms part of the rationale for what the protesters argue is China's encroachment on Hong Kong's high-level autonomy.
To date, Hong Kong remains a crucial hub of global business; its reputation as a firm and scrupulous adherent to the rule of law has enhanced its appeal. Over the years, successive leaderships in Hong Kong have also successfully styled themselves as trustworthy. It is no wonder, then, that those who support the protests in Hong Kong have a Manichean interpretation of the continuing protests: It is a fight by the "honorable" against the "dishonorable" government. At the heart of the matter is politics.
Politics by nature, like any social terrain, is a consequence of historical factors whose destination is never certain. Political structures are steeped in history. People, as agents, shape history. The political future is also something that, even though it can be planned, has the potential to mutate into unforeseen eventualities that impose the necessity for tinkering with original plans.
Thus, China's position on what is happening in Hong Kong should be looked at from a historical perspective. The Island of Hong Kong was ceded to the British Crown in 1842, as inscribed in the Treaty of Nanking, signed under coercion by British warships. This forfeiture was a culmination of a humiliating period in China's political history at the hands of a foreign invader. The Opium War that led the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) to relinquish Hong Kong was a social and moral disaster for Chinese society; to the British, Chinese resistance to opium trade was encroachment on the tenets of free trade. This was a textbook illustration of capitalist voracity and its disregard for human dignity.
China's woes resulting from foreign domination did not end with the loss of Hong Kong. In the 20th century, Japan carried out one of the most wanton destructions of human life that Asia has ever experienced on Chinese soil.
When China contributed so much to the struggle against foreign domination, it did so with a keen understanding of its empirical experience of foreign domination. That is why China played a pivotal role in helping countries of the Third World to snap the shackles of colonial and minority bondage. It did so to the extent that almost appeared suicidal and masochistic; for example, China put up a generous loan of more than $400 million toward building the Tanzania-Zambia Railway (TAZARA). This commitment was made in the late 1960s when China's per capita GDP was lower than that of Sub-Saharan Africa. Indeed, up to 1978, China's per capita GDP was $156 while the average for Sub-Saharan Africa was $490.
China's contribution toward the sovereignty and self-reliance of the Third World partly explains its sensitivity over Hong Kong. It should not be forgotten that, even though Hong Kong, enjoys a massive level of autonomy it is not a sovereign country and is hence ultimately under the jurisdiction of the Chinese government. In the final analysis, it is only natural to expect China to be angered by foreign interference in the affairs of Hong Kong. Thus, China's position to what is happening in Hong Kong is deeply steeped in historical context and China's role in promoting sovereignty of nations, free of foreign interference.
It would be beneficial for people in Hong Kong, especially its youth, to understand the historical factors that underpin China's reluctance to adopt foreign-bred modes of rule and its antipathy to foreign encroachment, whether ideological or physical.
What China seeks from the rest of the world is understanding and respect rather than censure and criticism. It has shown its own obeisance to non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations. It expects a repayment of the favor as it seeks to resolve the conflict that has engulfed Hong Kong.
David Monyae is director of the Centre for Africa-China Studies at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa; Emmanuel Matambo is a senior research fellow at the institute.
The authors contributed this article to China Watch exclusively. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of China Watch.
All rights reserved. Copying or sharing of any content for other than personal use is prohibited without prior written permission.
