President Obama praised Hong Kong’s “open system” this week during a private meeting with China’s foreign minister. Unfortunately, Hong Kong doesn’t yet have an open system, and President Obama has been disconcertingly quiet about the fact that the Chinese government is shutting the door to the possibility of one.
People have flooded the streets of Hong Kong the past couple weeks to protest indications from the Chinese government that it will renege on a promise that the territory can freely elect its chief executive in 2017. Under the Hong Kong constitution, the chief executive is currently chosen by an electoral college composed mostly of business executives appointed by the Chinese Communist government. But the constitution stipulates that eventually the executive will be elected by universal suffrage, and in 2007, the Communist party promised that this meant democratic elections in 2017.
Beware of Communists bearing promises: The mainland government is now proposing that the 2017 elections be a popular vote but that only candidates chosen by the appointed electoral college can stand. This is not a democratic election, and Hong Kongers know it.
The massive peaceful demonstrations were interrupted Friday by violent counter-protesters, apparently encouraged by the largely pro-Beijing business community. They may soon serve as a pretext for official government intervention. China is not serious, as many suspected it never was, about the “one country, two systems” approach that is meant to define mainland China’s relationship with Hong Kong and Macau. If that concept were even feasible, the Chinese Communist party could not be trusted to implement it.
President Obama should say, publicly, that China should abide by its commitment to the people of Hong Kong. The United States should not ignore this scandal just to maintain diplomatic harmony.
If we won’t endorse our ideals in a place that nearly has gotten to liberal democracy on its own, where will we? Hong Kongers want democracy, but many of the island’s business elite are reluctant to risk disrupting their profitable economic system. An endorsement for the protesters from the United States would remind all parties that there are powerful forces on the side of liberty.
Moreover, the Chinese government has, in spirit, broken an agreement with our closest ally. President Obama should make it clear that this calls into question the trustworthiness of Beijing in other areas.
Some worry that President Obama’s lending his weight to the cause of Hong Kong democracy will delegitimize it and enable the Chinese government to paint the protesters as foreign-backed agitators. But China has already done that and, in the mode of authoritarian regimes everywhere, will paint any move toward self-determination as a foreign plot no matter how far-fetched the idea. Moreover, this is a Communist party that explicitly considers such concepts as “civil rights” and “free speech” Western values that have no place in China. Freedom, in other words, is foreign meddling.
Hong Kongers and mainland Chinese know better. Hong Kong has plenty of economic liberty and limited political liberty, while the mainland has limited economic liberty and no political liberty. Both systems have produced some degree of prosperity, but also fantastic levels of corruption and disillusionment with government. If the Hong Kong protesters succeed in defending their political prerogatives, it will be a glimmer of hope for mainland Chinese, too. It is worth loudly proclaiming that we share this hope.