Opinion | The obsession with HK's downfall, and the denial of history
By Tom Fowdy
Last week, an article appeared in The Diplomat titled: "The Fall of Hong Kong: How China-US Rivalry Ended a Geopolitical Neutral Zone." Authored by Brian C.H Fong, a professor in Taiwan, the article creates a unique line of argument arguing that "Geopolitical rivalry" between the United States and China effectively brought the "decline" of the city, adopting a fairly original spin on the conventional narrative pushed in the mainstream media that the consequences of US-led intervention in the city, along with the national security law, all led to a forsaking of what the made the city great, described as: "freedom, autonomy, and prosperity."
As it attempts to incorporate the factor of the United States, Fong's analysis is naturally more objective and thoughtful than the line carried in the mainstream media which typically blames Beijing for everything that went wrong in the city. However, his depiction of the city as a Geopolitical "neutral" zone, completely removed from broader global events, and that only by "restoring" this status can the city be saved, is fanciful. As he even admits himself, "Washington still perceived Hong Kong as a political show window to influence China" and was as such "also a political outpost of the West."
Contrary to his belief however, Hong Kong has never been "neutral" at any point in its history. While the period from the handover to the imposition of the National Security Law did indeed generate political ambiguity that the US used to its benefit, the reality is that the city's history can be defined distinctly as first being an outpost of Western imperialism, and then part of China again. Hong Kong was, contrary to the author's opinion, never "free" or "autonomous." It was a colony of the British Empire that had been annexed from China by military force and ruled directly from London. Those who frame the city as having been a democracy, or having "lost" it in the process are quite frankly rewriting history.
To the Western romanticists, Hong Kong was a manifestation of capitalism and free-market economics which is what attracts such admiration, but never democracy as per. The governors of colonial Hong Kong, such as Chris Patten, were never elected. Ironically, it was this precise notion of stability under law which also made it prosperous, than this so-called love for democracy. The city occupies a strategic position which allowed it to profit existentially from the trade flows of East Asia going southbound and China itself. In ideological terms, Hong Kong was as Fong describes the "Western outpost" designed to influence mainland China of which it was hoped it would one day emulate.
Even though Hong Kong was restored to China, it is quite clear that this mindset remained and it was the expectation of the west that they would have a sense of "guardianship" over it, and the city would continue to be used to influence China, the country it was now part of, and not for that matter, the other way round. Effectively, this mindset denied "true" Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong, the idea that Hong Kong would be a part of China in "name only" and that it would have no right to influence it or cooperate with the authorities in any way whatsoever. This alone challenges the idea of Hong Kong being "geopolitically neutral" because the arrangement was that one party would be allowed to use it to project their influence in it with the view of targeting China, but not the other.
Hence, Hong Kong became a backdoor for US media, NGOs and political influence. While as the article notes, this was tolerable during the years that Washington D.C was not targeting China, as soon as this changed it took no time whatsoever for this uneasy political status quo to collapse as the US quickly weaponized the territory against Beijing with the riots of 2019-2020, and seemingly throughout it all the ultimate assertion of China's sovereign interests in the territory was not tolerated. This was not a geopolitical neutral zone, it was given the ideological and political conflict the city's existence had created, a ticking timebomb. Hong Kong was always supposed to change China, and not the other round.
It was assumed that China would inevitably transition to liberalize and become like the West, and never that the country would take its own path against the predictions of the "end of the history thesis" widely assumed in the 1990s. Thus, when it became obvious this wasn't happening, Hong Kong quickly became the center stage of a political showdown between the US and China, but even that considered, the idea that the city is "finished" because of the consequences of this is ultimately wishful thinking.
Few after all, would say that strident national security legislation has ever made Singapore bad for business, has it? Despite the trouble caused by the US's crusade against Beijing, Hong Kong is far from over, but one thing is for sure, the reality of its being as part of China has finally come to fruition. It is no longer the "western outpost" being used as a hostile conduit or "trojan horse" and never in any case, was such a long-term strategy tenable given its sovereignty had long been given back to the country it was taken from.
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 | The CIA revelations to destabilize China are what I always knew
Opinion | How MAGA become TikTok's unlikely ally
Opinion | The century of humiliation won't be repeated over TikTok
Comment