Opinion | The Age of Empires in Hong Kong is over

By Tom Fowdy

At the beginning of this week, the "Five Eyes" alliance, consisting of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, condemned the Legislative Council elections in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) following reform earlier this year which had reduced the number of directly elected candidates. The joint statement produced by the five foreign ministers of the group demanded a return to "full democracy" in the territory which they claimed was essential to its "prosperity". China brushed off the attack, with Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian reminding the group that under British dominion, Hong Kong was never a democracy.

The Five Eyes, or also known as the "Anglosphere" are five nations who espouse the ideology of "Anglophone exceptionalism" in turn established by the British Empire, who the group historically evolved from. Espousing a zealous and highly self-righteous worldview which does not perceive China as a social equal, these nations believe they have a greater stake in the future of Hong Kong, as an icon of British Imperialism, than the nation which it is rightfully a sovereign part of. However, the Age of Empires is over and there is nothing they can do to turn the clock back on this. This isn't about democracy, it's about national sovereignty.

In the British worldview, Hong Kong was something glorious. The city of Victoria which grew up on the island has iconified itself as a symbol of everything which supposedly makes the British Empire great, embodying the ideological traits of free market fundamentalism, low taxation, enterprise and hard work and as buoyed by Brexit, the starry-eyed nostalgia of a "global Britain". This overly idealistic view of the city of course came with little consideration for the historical traumas in which China suffered upon its creation, as per the typical mentality of English-speaking countries to insist that because they are so righteous, historical atrocities "no longer matter".

But for China, the loss of Hong Kong in the brutal Opium Wars raged against it by Britain was the opening gambit of what is now understood as "the century of humiliation"- a time whereby foreign powers colonized, exploited and inflicted great suffering upon the country in the wake of their own economic decisions. On this backdrop, the city which Britain sees as a magnificent indictment of its own legacy illustrated the national trauma of Chinese territory being annexed and colonized. But that's not all, the association of Colonial Hong Kong with freedom and democracy is also erroneous, for most of its history British rule over the territory was brutal and its Chinese population were largely treated as second-class citizens.

As a result, the handover of Hong Kong back to China was seen by the country as a "restorative justice" that is the correction of a historical wrong in returning the area to Chinese sovereignty. In turn, it became a symbol of China's revival, rise and development, drawing a contrast with the legacy of humiliation. However, the British and its Anglophone associates have proceeded to act as "guardians" in how they approach the Sino-British declaration. That is, they perceive themselves to be "protecting" the city from the "malign China whose influence in there is seen as illegitimate, intrusive and invasive." Their interpretation of its "autonomy" is zero-sum, that is Hong Kong can be a part of China, providing China has no actual say in the governing of it whatsoever, and that it becomes a platform for us to change China, and not the other way round.

But this is not tolerable. China understands Hong Kong as rightfully Chinese territory, and whilst the city continues to espouse autonomy and self-governance in the form of its own unique social, administrative, economic and legal systems, the idea that these English-speaking countries should have more say in its future than Beijing itself is as patronizing as it is insulting. The national security law and the electoral system have been reformed precisely because this interference destabilized the city, creating riots, disorder and violence in 2019. The fact that Legislative Council candidates should be loyal to China is not a question. Do you think anyone who refused to swear oath to the US constitution, or backed by a foreign adversary would be allowed to be elected to Congress? Or why do Sinn Fein pro-Irish reunification MPs in Britain not enter parliament? That's because they can't swear oath to the queen.

If there's one message these countries need to understand concerning Hong Kong now, that is the Age of Empires is over. No matter how much they protest, China will never relinquish its sovereign rights over the city and will dismantle the colonial-era identity which the British left behind. This is the new normal, and again it's not a question of democracy vs. authoritarianism as they like to style it, it's about a question of sovereignty and the anticipation that history ought never to repeat itself.

The author is a well-seasoned writer and analyst with a large portfolio related to China topics, especially in the field of politics, international relations and more. He graduated with an Msc. in Chinese Studies from Oxford University in 2018.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.

Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:

Opinion | Biden's anti-China supply chain strategy is taking shape

Opinion | The US 'boycott' is a cheap, worthless shot to try and humiliate China

Opinion | Hong Kong and Mainland have got 'zero-COVID' policy right