The big news story in our part of the world recently is the protests in Hong Kong, and the heavy-handed response of the Hong Kong police. There are several different groups involved with somewhat different methods and objectives, but in essence the protests have arisen out of the refusal of the Chinese central government to allow the people of Hong Kong to freely choose their leaders. Since the British handed Hong Kong over to China in 1997, the head of the Hong Kong government has been chosen by a committee dominated by pro-Beijing business figures. At the time of the handover, China agreed that universal suffrage was an ultimate goal for elections for the chief executive (and for the Hong Kong legislature as well), and the government’s current plans do call for the chief executive to be elected by the whole voting population in 2017. The problem is that all candidates first have to be approved by a committee that will essentially have the same makeup as the one that chooses the chief executive now. What’s more, one of the qualifications specified by the Chinese government is that all candidates must be “patriotic” and that they not have a confrontational attitude toward Beijing – in other words, they must be loyal to the central government and to the ruling Communist Party. Since Beijing generally views all liberal, pro-democracy politicians and activists as unpatriotic and confrontational, it is virtually guaranteed that under this set-up none of them will have a chance of getting approved. More likely Hong Kong voters will be faced with a choice similar to the two candidates that the committee had to choose from in its most recent vote for chief executive; both were pro-Beijing and pro-business, but the one who had originally been seen as the favorite became tainted by scandal, so the other, Hong Kong’s current leader C.Y. Leung, was elected. Many in Hong Kong rightfully think that by restricting nominations for chief executive in this way, Beijing is reneging on its promise to allow them to freely select their own leader. What's more, they fear that this may merely be a first step in reducing Hong Kong's freedom.
While some might wonder why the business interests that dominate the committee are predominately pro-Bejing, given that they are capitalists and the Chinese leadership is supposedly Communist, it is really no surprise. The business tycoons, for the most part, do not care about true democracy any more than their US counterparts like the Koch brothers. As long as they are free to make money without interference, they won’t object to a certain degree of authoritarianism. That is why Chinese president Xi Jinping recently summoned a large number of Hong Kong business tycoons to Beijing to consult with them on how to deal with (or suppress) the current protests. True democracy in Hong Kong would open the door to demands for higher wages, greater labor rights, and more social welfare. This is something that many of the wealthy business interests are desperate to prevent, and they will eagerly collude with Beijing to fight anything that they consider a threat to their interests. While there are a few rich tycoons who have taken the side of the democratic forces, notably Jimmy Lai, the owner of Next Media, one of the last independent media sources in Hong Kong, but he has faced considerable harassment for his stance. For the most part, the business interests are on the side of Beijing, and if all candidates for Hong Kong’s chief executive have to approved by a committee they dominate, it will be as if candidates for US president had to be approved by the US Chamber of Commerce (forget Barack Obama, much less someone like Elizabeth Warren – in 2012 Americans would probably have been left to choose between Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Paul Ryan).
When taken together with other developments in Hong Kong over the past few years, such as attacks on independently-minded journalists and media outlets and the attempt by the government to pass a stifling anti-subversion law (averted only by massive protests), it is no wonder that many in Hong Kong feel compelled to take to the streets to fight for their remaining freedom. And while due to Hong Kong’s extremely high profile and economic importance, the Chinese government has so far been hesitant to take the violently repressive measures they have taken in Tibet (or that they took in Beijing itself twenty-five years ago), that danger always remains. In any event, Hong Kong’s experience also serves as a lesson to Taiwanese that they would be wise to maintain their country’s independence (through mass protests, if necessary), rather than reaching any political accommodation with a control-obsessed and untrustworthy China. (For another detailed look at the Hong Kong protests, read this article).
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Scotland's Independence Referendum (and the People's Climate March)
As most people who follow world events already know, last week voters in Scotland rejected independence, choosing to remain part of the United Kingdom. Whether this was the right decision is of course debatable. There were quite a few observers who argued that Scottish independence would ultimately be harmful to both Scotland and the remaining United Kingdom (of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and various dependencies and territories scattered about the world). Independence supporters naturally argued the contrary, and asserted that some of the dire predictions were little more than scare tactics. For instance, while UK officials said in the last few days before the election that an independent Scotland would not be able to continue to use the British pound, others pointed out that many countries around the world use the US dollar as their currency without asking the permission of the US, and likewise the UK couldn’t actually stop Scotland from using the pound (though perhaps they could create other difficulties for the Scots if they wanted, such as blocking them from attaining EU membership).
Regardless of how one views the arguments pro and con, in the end Scottish voters went with the safe choice of the status quo. While this was a major disappointment for independence supporters, it was not by any means a great shock. Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom for three centuries, and while many Scots justifiably feel that England has treated its smaller neighbor shabbily for much of that time (as Englishman John Oliver acknowledged), the English (at least in recent centuries) have certainly not been remotely as oppressive as the Chinese are to the Tibetans, or as the Indonesians were to the East Timorese, or the Russians to the Baltic states, just to name a few examples. Since things weren’t really awful for Scotland as part of the United Kingdom, it is hardly surprising that a majority of Scots decided to let well enough alone – after all, most people are naturally somewhat conservative and tend to fear change. If anything, it is more surprising that the vote was as close as it was. After all, when UK Prime Minister David Cameron first agreed to allow the referendum to go forward, he did so largely because polls at the time indicated that a large majority of Scots would vote against independence. Though the final results were not as good for the pro-independence side as some of the polls in the last week or so indicated they might be (many of the late polls showed the two sides within a few points, and independence even had a slight edge in a few polls), they were far better than anyone would have expected a few months ago.
But as far as I am concerned, the real point of the referendum is that the Scottish people exercised their right of self-determination, reinforcing the point that this is a basic right for peoples all over the world, especially those that are currently being ruled by governments dominated by another people or nation. For places like Tibet, West Papua or Chechnya, the issue is not whether a majority of the people would vote for independence, but that their foreign rulers (China, Indonesia, and Russia, in these cases) won't even permit a vote in the first place. In fact, they treat even advocacy of the right to self-determination as if it were a crime (unless it is in their interest to do otherwise). How many Tibetans have been arrested for supporting "separatism"? How many times has the Chinese government accused the Dalai Lama of being a "splittist"? Perhaps if China really treated the Tibetans well, instead of driving them to self-immolate in protest against Chinese rule, Tibetans would actually vote to remain under Chinese rule. But by arresting people who merely speak in favor of the idea of independence, the Chinese government just reinforces the fact that it is just a harsh, oppressive imperialist ruler, and the same goes for other countries that suppress independence movements with harsh measures. While not all the arguments made for or against Scottish independence may have been convincing or even firmly grounded in fact, the point was that the debate, however passionate, remained in the realm of verbal arguments, TV ads, editorials, and blog posts, rather than arrests, beatings and muzzling of free speech. That is the lesson that nations like China need to learn from this.
In other news, the People's Climate March in New York and elsewhere brought hundreds of thousands of people onto the streets. Now let's just hope that world leaders (and everyone else) will finally wake up and start taking strong measures to deal with climate change before it is too late.
Regardless of how one views the arguments pro and con, in the end Scottish voters went with the safe choice of the status quo. While this was a major disappointment for independence supporters, it was not by any means a great shock. Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom for three centuries, and while many Scots justifiably feel that England has treated its smaller neighbor shabbily for much of that time (as Englishman John Oliver acknowledged), the English (at least in recent centuries) have certainly not been remotely as oppressive as the Chinese are to the Tibetans, or as the Indonesians were to the East Timorese, or the Russians to the Baltic states, just to name a few examples. Since things weren’t really awful for Scotland as part of the United Kingdom, it is hardly surprising that a majority of Scots decided to let well enough alone – after all, most people are naturally somewhat conservative and tend to fear change. If anything, it is more surprising that the vote was as close as it was. After all, when UK Prime Minister David Cameron first agreed to allow the referendum to go forward, he did so largely because polls at the time indicated that a large majority of Scots would vote against independence. Though the final results were not as good for the pro-independence side as some of the polls in the last week or so indicated they might be (many of the late polls showed the two sides within a few points, and independence even had a slight edge in a few polls), they were far better than anyone would have expected a few months ago.
But as far as I am concerned, the real point of the referendum is that the Scottish people exercised their right of self-determination, reinforcing the point that this is a basic right for peoples all over the world, especially those that are currently being ruled by governments dominated by another people or nation. For places like Tibet, West Papua or Chechnya, the issue is not whether a majority of the people would vote for independence, but that their foreign rulers (China, Indonesia, and Russia, in these cases) won't even permit a vote in the first place. In fact, they treat even advocacy of the right to self-determination as if it were a crime (unless it is in their interest to do otherwise). How many Tibetans have been arrested for supporting "separatism"? How many times has the Chinese government accused the Dalai Lama of being a "splittist"? Perhaps if China really treated the Tibetans well, instead of driving them to self-immolate in protest against Chinese rule, Tibetans would actually vote to remain under Chinese rule. But by arresting people who merely speak in favor of the idea of independence, the Chinese government just reinforces the fact that it is just a harsh, oppressive imperialist ruler, and the same goes for other countries that suppress independence movements with harsh measures. While not all the arguments made for or against Scottish independence may have been convincing or even firmly grounded in fact, the point was that the debate, however passionate, remained in the realm of verbal arguments, TV ads, editorials, and blog posts, rather than arrests, beatings and muzzling of free speech. That is the lesson that nations like China need to learn from this.
In other news, the People's Climate March in New York and elsewhere brought hundreds of thousands of people onto the streets. Now let's just hope that world leaders (and everyone else) will finally wake up and start taking strong measures to deal with climate change before it is too late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
