Skip to main content

China Versus China

Image
By

The question implicit in the demand that China has made regarding American involvement with the Hong Kong demonstrators is whether or not Beijing is really willing to forego a substantial trade deal with Washington. Unless the PRC leadership is willing to sacrifice their much-desired trade relationship with the United States, they must not continue with their threats.

To deny the American Navy access to Hong Kong's port facilities may seem to be a strong action, but in reality, it's not – although the loss of shore leave for American sailors may be a hardship. As convenient as Hong Kong may be in technical naval support terms, the truth is that other ports can fill in quite well, even if the entertainment is less attractive. Of course, the entire issue of gaining full political control of HK may be deemed so important that Beijing could choose to “cut off its nose to spite its face”.

The fact is that the agreement to leave Hong Kong to control its own administration for 50 years actually could be a “face saver” for Xi Jinping's government and Xi personally. If the PRC leadership sees the propaganda price for crushing Hong Kong's resistance is too great, the ability to fall back on the legality issue of the 1997 accord lets them off the hook, at least for the moment. That is what is key – taking the tough stance and sticking to it at the right time! So, the question arises what would be the right time?

The basic problem facing Xi Jinping is how to appear successful even while having to give up on matters of important domestic political circumstance. This would seem to be an impossible task as current affairs (economically and politically) are structured. There clearly are compromises possible, but it has to be accepted that both sides will have to lose something. These issues are being studied now, but the PRC finds itself in a disadvantageous position because they already have thrown down the gauntlet of military action.

As has occurred in many similar situations, the aggressive use of force has an alternative character by simply agreeing to cease (or curtail) military action. As a chess move the serious reduction (to say nothing of elimination) of police and military intervention allows the Hong Kong dissidents in turn to take ameliorative steps on their side of the confrontation. Once a peaceful – or approximately peaceful – first step is taken, the overt first movement toward a serious solution can begin. It all depends on how much each side is willing to compromise.

The most obvious area of a new understanding would seem to be the fifty-year term of “self-rule” previously agreed upon. A rewriting of the initial accord to allow for a shorter transition period would be a bitter pill to swallow for Hong Kong, but it could provide for the necessary cessation of conflict. Clearly, this would be considered a major defeat by the HK side, so it would be essential to balance this action with a new agreement toward some form of future independence of action. Ultimately, Hong Kong would have to accept its role as subsidiary to the PRC. Painful, but true!

As most things in world affairs - especially in Asia – are driven by economic advantages, the same situation is the only route to a peaceful path in the China/HK dispute. In other words, it all adds up to who gets how much from whom. While the naval facilities of Hong Kong are very useful to the U.S. Navy, they clearly are not an essential element in military terms.

As much as the United States wishes to maintain good relations with China, Washington's commitment to the original agreement is an essential part of American and UK foreign policy. The power of Xi Jinping's rivals in the Politburo is tested by this serious internationalized conflict. Contrary to the way it may seem to some observers, the strongest cards are in the hands of the United Kingdom and the United States, along with their allies. It all comes down to how painful the situation is – and is growing - for China. Meanwhile the real danger as perceived by the PRC hierarchy is, “Will the lesson of Hong Kong's dissidence spread elsewhere in China?”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Game Of Games

By
There has been a great deal of discussion about how one or another major international figure, and other relatively minor ones, are “in the pocket” of this or that political entity. The fact is that all major governments have at their disposal organizations and individuals who specialize in these forms of deception often referred to as “disinformation”. In brief, this activity is simply a way to disseminate propaganda and sometimes even tactically false information for operational purposes. The entire activity has been a staple of rival governmental activity since the earliest of times. Essentially, this political weapon is based on human frailties that are then exploited by the opposing group. The alternatives are endless. It's both an offensive and defensive weapon. We have seen it used recently in the case of the coronavirus where many in the international community placed blame on the Chinese government seeking to embarrass Beijing. To protect themselves, the PRC respond...
Post a Comment
Read more

After Action Report

By
The pandemic of the coronavirus (COVID-19) has exposed the shortcomings of numerous countries, but the profoundly communist Peoples Republic of China seems to have been caught up in its own political insecurity. As usual, the vastly over organized political structure of the PRC resulted in an initial effort to disclaim any role in the evolution of the new virus emanating from the city of Wuhan. At the same time worldwide, similar confused political elements sought to avoid placing blame for the siting of the virus on China - or at least quickly condemning those who did. The fact that it had been recognized in the first week or two of January – or even before that by American and other intelligence services that a new and serious epidemic had hit the city of Wuhan was kept from the public for well over a month in many cases and more in others. It appears that even Beijing's leadership were unaware of what their local security service had been reporting after they learned o...
Post a Comment
Read more

Vlad Staying On

By
The West reacted predictably when Vladimir Putin announced he would stay in office after his current term was over. Of course, this was greeted with claims of “dictatorship” outside of Russia. These claims may be justified on the face but are not very insightful. To begin with, it is important to recognize that Putin's background, parentage and upbringing have been carefully confused in official rewriting. There are few facts that seem consistent. It seems fairly sure that his father was a mechanic, but he was raised by his grandparents in most reports. Who his mother was is disputed in several accounts, though there now seems to be agreement on Maria Ivanova Putin (family name: Shelonova). None of this seem to matter very much except that he came from a 'working class” family. What is important is the general agreement that Putka, as he was called in his early years, seemed to be fascinated by the organization of the secret police, the NKVD, as it was then called. It has...
Post a Comment
Read more