16 August, 2022


China & Hong Kong: A Negotiated Solution Is The Only Way Forward

By Lionel Bopage and Michael Colin Cooke

The Covid-19 pandemic has diverted attention away from many of the intractable problems around the world, exacerbated by the necessary limits on social gathering. This has taken the struggle for social justice from the streets to the internet. This can be seen an opportune time for authoritarian leaders to curb the rights of their citizens. President Xi Jinping of China has used this opportunity to try to extinguish the democratic impulse of the citizens of Hong Kong. This cynical political tactic is being met with strong opposition as witnessed by the immediate resistance from the various democratic formations.

Photo – Marta Escurra | @marta_escurra

This needless tragedy has been in play since March 2019 when the mainland proposed an extradition treaty with the Hong Kong. Images of resistance and the violence of the state were on our screens daily. The extradition bill was postponed but the demands of the citizens for an inquiry into the actions of the security forces have been ignored. Negotiations on the other key demands of the protesters and a commitment to the one nation and two systems have also been ignored. Instead the government of President Xi Jinping has ramped up its nationalist rhetoric and support base and is threatening to unleash its formidable military machine on the unarmed citizens of Hong Kong. One of the more disturbing sights was when the police in November last year laid siege on the protestors at the university. Images of the wanton use of tear gas, batons, terrified protestors and debris of their heavy-handed action was there for all to see. Did these repeated attacks dampen the democratic impulse of the people of Hong Kong? It did not as the local election held soon after delivered a landslide victory for the pro-democracy campaigners.

Given all that has unfolded so far, now it is time for working out a negotiated solution that takes into consideration the democratic needs of the citizens of Hong Kong based on their historically different judicial and political formations and democratic wishes. It will  pave the way for a long-lasting solution both for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the people of Hong Kong. What follows are the reasons why.

As outlined above, the people of Hong Kong cannot be bullied into submission. If the Chinese government and its paramount leader wants to have stability in the region, negotiating with the pro-democracy forces would offer a clear-cut solution – anything else would be a recipe of more of the same.

History is a hard task master and sober guide if the demise of the Soviet Union provides us any guide. The Soviet Union went through from being a democracy of workers, peasants and soldiers to an authoritarian state, under the paranoid eye of Stalin. It devoured its own leaders and principles.  In doing so it stifled the rights of the working people while paradoxically extolling their virtues. At the same time the state issued political edicts, one after the other supporting the rights of countries and minorities to self-determination; yet in its own backyard, they crushed the democratic and progressive aspirations of the Polish, Hungarian and Czechoslovakian masses. Pro imperialist governments gleefully exploited the situation to tarnish the real achievements of the Soviet Union. 

These contradictions and lack of accountability and transparency coupled with the military incursion into Afghanistan weakened the regime and its moribund leadership. The Soviet Union despite its military might collapsed under its own contradictions leading to the triumphalism of neo-liberals everywhere.

China is the new Soviet Union. The economic policies led by the Communist Party of China (CCP) have lifted hundreds of millions of its people out of penury into the realm of the middle class. In doing so, it has projected a bright future for all its inhabitants. In tandem it has increased its military and economic clout internally as well as around the world.

It has done so with a toxic unitary nationalism that does not take account of the cultural, linguistic and religious rights of its diverse people. It has engaged in empire building and has created a totalitarian dictatorship on its own people. Any action by human rights activists and any critical political and cultural activity are deemed anti-Chinese and are brutally supressed. Its bullying action with its own neighbours, Taiwan and Hong Kong is worrying and provides factual political fodder for its opponents in the West. A major military build-up by both the Indian and Chinese armies is taking place simultaneously. President Xi Jinping has emphasised the importance of China’s military standing, by stating that the country’s defence forces need to up their preparedness for armed combat. In this light Hong Kong can be seen as the Achilles heel of China’s authoritarian political, security and economic apparatus.

Like the anti-Soviet rhetoric of yester year the hysteria agenda against China is on full display on certain section of the media and the LNP government down under. A government that has developed a draconian refugee policy is now on the record, welcoming political refugees from China! Whilst one cannot dispute the rights of human rights and labour activists, the Uighur people, Falun Gong, Tibetan political activists from seeking asylum in Australia; the government should also allow genuine refugees fleeing persecution and wars from all parts of the globe and not just single out China because it suits the geo-political aspiration of the American Empire. 

This political decadent political praxis of the CCP is eerily reminiscent of the Soviet Union before it declined. The leadership of the Party is increasingly becoming authoritarian. The Chinese leader and the CCP need to learn from the experiences of the collapse in the nineties of the Soviet Union and the ‘socialist camp’. 

So, instead of demonising their critics and those forces in Hong Kong who want to preserve their democratic rights as anti-Chinese, the CCP and its leadership need to learn from history. History shows that any short-term success a military solution will be able to achieve in crushing dissent will, like in the last century in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, be futile in the long term. It will only hasten the demise of the CCP. The wisest political step will be to take cognisance of the democratic needs of its citizens and accept and respect their democratic rights.

A negotiated settlement with the democratic forces in Hong Kong will serve the best interests of both China and Hong Kong. For at the end of the day an overwhelming military superiority cannot be sustained in the long term without the consent of the people, the party rules over. The CCP should not repeat the mistakes of the Soviet Union which self-immolated under the weight of its own political hubris.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 9

    Bopage has zero understanding of the situation. HK was ethnic Chinese until the British arrived and converted it into a drug smuggling center. Which it still is. Bopage may of heard of the opium wars or the boxer rebellion. When the Chinese rebeled against Indian/ Afghan opium being spread by the British. Causing millions of death. After the second world war the Brits chould no longer hold on to their colonies. But cut a deal with the Chinese to administer HK. Which IS NOTHING BUT A drug smuggling. Money laundering operation and a place for billionaires to hide their money. Like Switzerland. After the British was forced to hand back Hk to the Chinese in 1997. The ANGLO- AMERICAN banking cartels continued to interfere in mainland China. These so called protests are funded by British intelligence, CIA and other western interests.

  • 3

    It is an excellent article and is a demand for democratic rights. We all support and welcome, but some historical facts are not revealed.

    Let me fill up the gap.

    Hong Kong is Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

    Britain obtained a 99-year lease of Hong Kong in 1898 and at the end of this period , it was returned to China in 1997 with an agreement to have political and social autonomy through a “one country, two systems” policy for a 50-year-period.

    Capitalism and socialism exits side by side, if you really believe China has a socialist system.

    Could China be able to solve this problem democratically within its sovereign territory?.

    • 4

      It is a curious thing that while HK was under British rule, even this much of democracy was not granted.
      Ironically, the reforms in China are said to have been based on HK and Singapore.

      • 5

        It was after the transfer of sovereignty of HK from UK to China that Chris Patten cynically introduced a ‘democratic’ system.
        HK was always a business fist place. China under Deng Xiaoping opted for a policy of ‘path of least resistance’ to regain HK.
        When Deng announced ‘Socialism with Chinese Characteristics’ any socialist worth his salt knew that it was capitalism by another name.
        The Chinese learned from the failure of the Russian model of transition to capitalism. As European models were inappropriate, HK as you say was a model to emulate and Singapore I would say a little less. But much of the old infrastructure was not dismantled. Capitalism crept in slowly.

  • 2

    Was Soviet Union ever democracy-ever in its history? Or was it ever dictatorship of the proletariat? -rather than paying lip service for both!


    Soviet Union was not sure about their own system. They compromised again and again under relentless pressure from the west and ultimately collapsed.

    On the other hand China slowly changed itself into a form of capitalist system and escaped from the fate of Soviet Union cunningly continuing with the dictatorship of the Communist party.

    Thereby Communism/socialism is universally discredited and neo- liberalism had a field day!

  • 0

    China just passed the national security law for Hong Kong.
    This is blow for HK’ as a financial centre.
    Sri Lanka politicians are busy debating Homagama cricket stadium ….while all the investment and jobs from HK goes to Singapore.

    • 4

      I will not go that far about the impact.
      HK’s importance as a financial centre was already eroding as the Chinese were building up their own financial centres, especially in nearby Shenzhen.
      After the troubles an year ago, the trend has accelerated.
      The importance of HK will be increasingly more political.

  • 3

    A whale is trying to swallow a tuna and two sprats are intervening!


  • 1

    I believe it was Lee Kuan Yew who once told “Whoever who governs Singapore must have the iron in him or give it up. This is not a game of cards…..”. Not only did the clutches of Eastern Europe was lost but the USSR’s 15 constituent republics was split into separate countries as a result of the shake up. The result of a top down system is that the instant the leadership becomes “decent” or “weak” as it happened during Mikhail Gorbachev’s time, a split is a real possibility. Today’s Russia, which was the RSFSR of the USSR is together because an old spymaster, now spruced to modern times, is its leader. China, too practices devolution in its own form and like in the USSR, the Communist Party has its say. The day the leadership looses its iron what happened to USSR may well happen to PRC. It is correct to say in other words that by hitting at the “self-esteem” of a man or a group of people one cannot win him / her or them. Negotiations can win people if it results in a successful conclusion mainly based on a win-win model safeguarding mutual respect.

    • 3

      “..and like in the USSR, the Communist Party has its say.”
      I think that there is a slip.
      The Communist Party of Russia lost out after the collapse of the USSR.
      Negotiations will work when purposes are genuine.

      • 0

        Precisely. USSR is no more and with it went the Communist Party’s power. I believe I am OK when I compare the status of power of the Communist Party in China with that of the Communist Party of the USSR. (No comparison of ideology and the rest). Indeed if and only if the purpose is genuine negotiations can lead to a successful conclusion mainly based on a win-win model safeguarding mutual respect.

  • 1

    Good Sense

    The iron fist governance has proven its legitimacy and validity.
    What the Soviet history shows is that if a state refuses to accept “Unity in Diversity” a compassionate approach to its form of governance however much it tries to forcibly keep the components together it will be reduced to a pathetic rubble.

    While the country’s population increases the state and it’s no good “Parana” institutions cannot and won’t be able to connect and hold the people together as one unit given that technology, communication, media, taste, wants ….. objectives constantly expanding and keep changing.

    Politics is also a zero sum game, where winners cannot keep all.

    • 1

      Native Vedda,
      I am not commenting on the validity and legitimacy of every iron fisted governance. My quotation of LKY is to show that the leadership in any territory needs some degree of firmness and the lack of it too contributes to a break up of a country such as what happened to USSR under Gorbachev. Same fate can occur to any country that generally practises a top down model and very rarely bottoms up with a “weak leadership” . A successful governance requires a suitable mix of everything. If comment on the dark side of politics there can be no end to this comment limited to 200 words.

    • 0

      “Politics is also a zero sum game, where winners cannot keep all.”
      Politics is also a zero sum game, where losers cannot demand all.


Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 5 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.