A panel of inquiry would change the mood in Hong Kong

The Chinese government’s reaction to protests in Hong Kong is pathetic; it needs to start behaving differently, writes Chris Patten

A panel of inquiry would change the mood in Hong Kong

The Chinese government’s reaction to protests in Hong Kong is pathetic; it needs to start behaving differently, writes Chris Patten

The demonstrations and the political crisis in Hong Kong are now into their fifth month.

Every weekend, people take to the streets to protest against their government and the armlock in which China’s communist regime holds it. And for now, at least, there seems to be no resolution in sight.

The political drama began with protests against the attempt by Hong Kong’s chief executive, Carrie Lam, to introduce a bill allowing the city’s citizens to be extradited to mainland China.

The understandable fear across the city was that the bill would destroy the firewall between the rule of law in Hong Kong and the rule of the Communist Party of China (CPC) across the border.

After all, it is communist law that incarcerates people in “re-education” camps in China’s Xinjiang region, and jails lawyers and human rights activists who are brave enough to speak up. Promised a share in president Xi Jinping’s China dream, all Hong Kong’s citizens could see was a nightmare.

An issue that had mobilised 2m people to demonstrate peacefully then morphed into something much more complicated. First, the Hong Kong government seemed oblivious to popular concern. And when it eventually announced that the extradition bill was dead, the concession came too late. By then, other worries had fed public anxiety.

For starters, Hong Kong’s citizens are unhappy about squeezed living standards and high housing costs. Moreover, increasingly heavy-handed policing of the protests provoked an often-violent response, which in turn led the police to escalate their strong-arm tactics.

Pro-Beijing factions, clearly organised by local United Front communist activists, colluded with gangsters to beat up demonstrators and target the families of their suspected leaders. Suspicions grew that the Hong Kong authorities knew what was going on but had chosen to do nothing about it.

Above all, it became increasingly apparent that China’s leaders would not let Ms Lam and her ineffective, often invisible government seek any compromise with public opinion.

Many demonstrators seemed to conclude that the only thing to do was to put on helmets and gas masks and brave the tear gas and water cannon. This is not to condone the violent protests, but it perhaps explains them.

Then Ms Lam enacted a new regulation banning face masks, fuelling more anger.

On the other side of the battle, the occasional brutality of Hong Kong’s police may indicate a force forgetting its responsibilities under terrible pressure and hitting back too hard. The police cannot be expected to be an indefinite substitute for politics. Pepper spray is not an acceptable alternative to talking, listening, and negotiating.

By now, the CPC must understand that although most people in Hong Kong are not seeking independence from the mainland, they hate the sort of brutal communism that led many of them to flee to the city as refugees. Nor can they abide a dictatorship threatening the freedom and high degree of autonomy that distinguish their citizenship from that of mainland Chinese.

The Chinese government’s reaction to the events in Hong Kong is pathetic and counterproductive. In an insult to the demonstrators, China’s leaders blame outside forces for whipping up anti-communist sentiment. It’s all a CIA plot, they say, or maybe a conspiracy planned by other foreigners.

Alternatively, the Chinese authorities point the finger at some of Hong Kong’s most distinguished public servants, who have urged the city’s government to talk to the demonstrators.

The CPC, by contrast, is waiting out the demonstrations in the hope that the protesters lose heart and perhaps the will to resist, while also sending senior officials to instruct Ms Lam not to give any ground. For China’s leaders, any move perceived as a concession would be the first step on a slippery slope.

However, if China’s leaders were as sophisticated as they claim, they would behave very differently.

Instead of undermining international trust with their behaviour toward Hong Kong, they would affirm their intention to uphold China’s commitments under the Joint Declaration treaty and guarantee Hong Kong’s freedoms and high degree of local autonomy until 2047.

They would also allow Ms Lam to establish a commission of inquiry to examine the reasons behind the demonstrations, how they have been policed, and the occasional violence of some protesters. This is less than the demonstrators are now demanding.

I believe setting up such a panel would change the mood in Hong Kong, and would provide at least some hope of a dialogue.

And if Ms Lam will not do this herself, there is a strong case for some of Hong Kong’s most respected citizens to take the initiative and establish an independent informal commission.

This would be difficult, and it might not work. But taking such a step would surely be better than letting things continue from one violent weekend to the next.

Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong and a former EU commissioner for external affairs, is chancellor of the University of Oxford.

More in this section

IE logo


The Business Hub

News and analysis on business, money and jobs from Munster and beyond by our expert team of business writers.

Sign up
Puzzles logo

Puzzles hub

News Wrap

A lunchtime summary of content highlights on the Irish Examiner website. Delivered at 1pm each day.

Sign up

Some of the best bits from irishexaminer.com direct to your inbox every Monday.

Sign up
Execution Time: 0.235 s