|
¬ü°ê©M¥xÆW¦p¦ó¦b»´ä°ÝÃD¤W°_§@¥Î
STEPS IN THE WRONG DIRECTION: HOW
TAIWAN AND THE UNITED STATES ARE SETTING HONG KONG BACK
By Tom Plate
April 9, 2004
We need to have a better
understanding of what is happening in China, its province Hong Kong, Taiwan
and the United States. Misunderstandings could well breed serious frictions
between East and West that might yield tragic results.
Beijing recently decreed that in
effect it is the boss of Hong Kong, not Hong Kong (technically correct) and
certainly not the U.S. Senate (incontrovertibly correct). But dissenters in
Hong Kong are decrying the bluntness of the decision. Here's the true story:
The Chinese took over as Hong
Kong's landlord in 1997. They were given the keys to the city-territory by
the British, who had fully occupied and wholly harbored this Southeast Asian
jewel for more than 150 years. When Margaret Thatcher was prime minister,
London wisely accepted the obvious truth that such a counter-historic relic
of colonialism, right on China's doorstep, could not long endure. Cagily,
the British negotiated a 100 percent handover -- but one that included the
prospect that Hong Kong, under China, might someday become a
one-citizen/one-vote democracy.
The post-1997 road map for the
long-awaited evolution toward democracy (of the one-citizen/one-vote
variety) was written into the Basic Law, the template constitution
negotiated by Beijing and London, that allows for it to occur as early as
2007. But the Basic Law doesn't require it to happen then, and no
transformation date was set. Indeed, based on the recent train of negative
events, it now seems improbable that this will happen any time soon.
There are at least three reasons
for this.
The first is named Chen Shui-bian.
The president of Taiwan has been so forceful (and clever) at pushing the
formal-independence-from-the-mainland issue that even George W. Bush -- as
pro-Taiwan a president as we have had since Ronald Reagan -- felt compelled
to ask him to cool it. Basically, it's generally better when the United
States says nothing publicly about Taiwan, or Hong Kong for that matter. But
China's No. 2, on a visit to Washington, bluntly warned Bush that China
would absolutely not shrink from military action if Chen did anything
further to advance official independence.
Chen did back down -- but only a
bit. That bugged Beijing anew. It views Taiwan as an integral part of China.
So when the island's politicians do a freedom-now number, Beijing gets
tetchy and emotional, and its generals and admirals get trigger-happy.
Taiwan independence talk also adds
to Beijing nervousness about Hong Kong, especially when its "pro-democracy"
politicians appear as Chen Shui-bian clones. While the West hears the word
"democracy," Beijing apprehends "sedition" and "separation."
That leads directly to the second
reason why Beijing is testy about Hong Kong these days: Sam Brownback, the
Republican senator from Kansas, who is about as popular in Beijing as Osama
bin Laden in Washington. China believes he is potentially as destructive to
China, too. Last month Brownback had Martin Lee, the outspoken Hong Kong
democracy-now advocate, testify at Senate hearings about Hong Kong.
Brownback may be a sincere
pro-democracy advocate, but by colluding in the Lee public-hearings circus
in his role as armchair Washington quarterback, he inadvertently set back
Hong Kong's democracy movement by a few years.
China, like it or not, will broach
no interference in its internal political affairs. It likens the Brownback
stunt to Beijing's National People’s Congress holding hearings on the effect
of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget cuts on Chinese students
at California campuses. Americans would be enraged by such blatant
interference, and rightly so. But America seems to have no sense that its
interventions in the affairs of others, no matter how high-minded, enrage
rather than charm.
That leads to a third reason why
Beijing is edgy about the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong. Its main man
there --- Tung Chee Hwa, the chief executive appointed in 1997 by a small
congress of 800 influential local electors -- is a political conservative
and Hong Kong patriot. But he and many others (while not appreciative of
China’s bombast) share Beijing's view that Hong Kong is not ready for full
democracy.
China wishes Tung had a better
handle on the territory's emotions. During last summer's peaceful protest --
500,000 Hong Kongers in the streets -- China's leaders quaked, as anyone
might who had lived through the tragic ordeals of the Tiananmen Square
uprising and the nightmarish Cultural Revolution. China can hardly see
straight when large crowds swell in its streets, even in relatively remote
Hong Kong.
But Taiwan's Chen, Kansas'
Brownback and Hong Kong's Tung have set into motion a series of inevitable
protest demonstrations that are more likely to end in bloodshed than in
democracy. It's a major political tragedy in the making. |