No Country for the People of Hong Kong

What does a state exist for? There are two explanations for the origin of the state. The better-known one is, of course, the social contract theory. According to this explanation, a state comes into being when the citizens who will become its members consent to a social contract that includes the state’s guaranteeing their security. The other explanation is the alternative one presented by Mancur Olson. In his view, the state emerges when a bandit who once roamed from place to place pillaging settles in one location and changes his survival strategy to one of imperfect but continuous and permanent extraction. In the two explanations, the state exists respectively to guarantee citizens’ security and to carry out sustainable extraction, but in any case, both share one thing in common: a state cannot fail to guarantee the basic security of the citizens within its territory.

At present, there is no state for the people of Hong Kong. It is no exaggeration to say that the central government of the People’s Republic of China has effectively abandoned its role of protecting Hong Kongers’ basic security and civil liberties. Indeed, it has gone beyond abandonment and is now actively threatening that security and violating those liberties. Innocent citizens were beaten on the subway by pro-Beijing thugs, and the Hong Kong police even fired a rubber bullet into the eye of a citizen protesting the extradition bill. Meanwhile, the Chinese Communist Party threatened Hong Kong by sending troops to Shenzhen, just 10 minutes away from Hong Kong. More recently, a student participating in a protest was shot in the left side of the chest with live ammunition fired by Hong Kong police, and a middle school girl who had actively taken part in the protests was found dead and naked on the shore. Allegations have also been raised that Hong Kong police sexually assaulted protest participants.

With coercive and excessive suppression, troops massing nearby, crimes against humanity in the course of the crackdown, cries for democratization and freedom, and the central government’s control of the media, it is hard not to be reminded of Gwangju in May 1980. “March for the Beloved,” sung in Gwangju on those days, has also rung out amid Hong Kong’s struggle today. Joshua Wong said he hopes South Korea will not remain silent. He is the figure who led the 2014 Umbrella Revolution and was later arrested on charges of leading the recent protests as well. The Republic of Korea has not been able to utter a single word about the atrocities of the Chinese Communist Party. It is truly heartbreaking and frustrating.

Of course, this is difficult. Under the authoritarian government of the Chinese Communist Party are 1.4 billion consumers. Even transnational corporate giants such as Blizzard, Disney, Apple, and Google have knelt. But the market does not work in such a childish way alone. Just as South Korea did with Japan, there is no guarantee that Chinese consumers would actively launch a boycott against all Korean companies, and even if a boycott were to occur, there are other markets all over the world to turn to. Was this not one of the arguments made by the Democratic Party government when it called for self-reliance in response to Japan’s trade retaliation? It is puzzling that a party which has so often exploited its image of standing up to authoritarian regimes would gamble with people’s livelihoods over Japan, yet say not a single word about the tragedy and crisis in Hong Kong.

For Hong Kongers, in a situation like this, there is no choice but to establish a new government of their own rather than rely on the Chinese Communist Party government. The Chinese Communist Party government no longer has any intention of being a government for the people of Hong Kong, and in reality there is virtually no external deterrent force capable of turning it back. The declaration of a provisional government in Hong Kong a few days ago should likely be understood in that context. Of course, that declaration itself was controversial over whether it could truly represent Hong Kongers. But if one is a Hong Konger—if one is a Hong Konger who must wrest freedom from the oppressive Chinese Communist Party government and the Hong Kong puppet government—then sooner or later there will be no choice but to establish a new government for themselves. Otherwise, the only alternative is to become subjects of the Chinese Communist Party government.

There is something we can learn from what is happening in Hong Kong. An oppressive totalitarian system such as “One China” is a means that cannot be justified for any end. Forcing unwanted rule on people is essentially no different from exploitation. If one cannot choose for oneself the state and government that govern and discipline one’s life, then how is one any different from a slave who, as a taxpayer, serves the ruler? Therefore, people who do not want the anti-freedom and arbitrary rule under the Chinese Communist Party must have the right to break away from that rule and become independent. In this sense, the Chinese Communist Party government has imposed an order disadvantageous to the people of Hong Kong, and Hong Kongers have continued their struggle to escape that path of servitude.

If Hong Kong were to achieve independence, it would deal a considerable blow to the system of “One China.” For ethnic minorities seeking independence, Hong Kong’s independence could provide both a powerful justification and a catalyst. In the end, the People’s Republic of China must split into several states. Only then can East Asia become freer and more prosperous. There are also people who make the absurd claim that the People’s Republic of China must remain “One China” even in order to counter American hegemony. To those who view international politics as little more than a game of territorial competition among powers, that may sound plausible.

The reason American hegemony remains absolute today is that the world trusts the U.S. dollar. And trust in the dollar comes from the world’s trust in the United States. If the United States were to behave like a barbaric tyrant toward the world, it would inevitably lose that hegemony instead. There is no doubt that the United States is today the one and only hegemonic power on earth, but that hegemony is not something it can wield however it pleases. It can be exercised freely only within the framework of the logic that created it—in America’s case, the cause of expanding liberal democracy and peace. In that sense, there is no particular justification for insisting that the international order must form a bipolar structure of China and the United States. From the standpoint of those who want independence in defiance of the Chinese Communist Party’s oppression, “several (free) Chinas” under the United States would be far preferable to “One China” standing against the United States.

Even so, if a bipolar structure is considered necessary, there are alternatives such as the European Union. There is no reason the force capable of pressuring the United States must take the form of “One China.” If what is truly needed is a power capable of issuing meaningful warnings and pressure against a United States that throws its weight around using the dollar as a weapon, and if, further, a new Asian order is needed to counter a Western-centered international order, then “several Chinas” could become one again through a union. Of course, in such an arrangement there is no place for the threat of central power directed at citizens through oppressive uses of force.

That is why Hong Kong’s independence is immensely important and urgently needed. The danger of an armed crackdown like that of Gwangju in May 1980 will likely grow greater in the future, but that also means that the system of “One China” is facing a crisis. I hope Hong Kong does not retreat. And the international community, too, must not look away but continue to watch over Hong Kong. The winds of freedom in East Asia will blow outward from Hong Kong.

---

Original title: 홍콩인을 위한 국가는 없다

Author: Young-jun Kim

Date: 2019-10-14

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=free_opinion&pn=17&idx=21957