China has an exalted sense of nationhood. Its leaders vilify any comment on its political practices as unwarranted outside “interference,” yet Beijing is always eager to lecture America on its policies. Last week, for instance, U.S. officials met with Martin Lee, founder of the party with the most elected seats in Hong Kong’s legislature.
The People’s Republic of China very publicly took offense at this. Appointed Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa complained, “We will not accept interference from foreign people. Our own people should also not invite foreign people to interfere.”
The Lee controversy was part of on ongoing brouhaha over the nation’s handling of the “Special Administrative Region” of Hong Kong. Hundreds of thousands of the city’s 6.8 million residents successfully rallied last year to protest the “anti-subversion” legislation that was pushed by the Chinese government. Many of those who took it to the streets then are now advocating free elections and universal suffrage.
That shouldn’t be a controversial demand. In the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration China promised to guarantee Hong Kong’s autonomy and various freedoms, including a “legislature constituted by elections” after the city was turned back over to the mainland. In the 1990 Basic Law, signed by both Britain and China, Beijing pledged to provide an elective legislature and executive by 2008.
However, Beijing has responded to talk of democracy by denouncing activists as “clowns,” “dogs,” “dreamers,” and “traitors,” who are “unpatriotic” and “meddlesome” for seeking “outside interference” in Hong Kong’s affairs.
IT COMES AS LITTLE surprise that the unelected Communist leaders in Beijing fear the exercise of democracy in lands peopled by ethnic Chinese. Consider the PRC’s reaction to past and present presidential races in Taiwan, as well as President Chen Shui-bian’s use of a popular referendum on relations with China.
Equally threatening is the fact that Hong Kong residents can vote, and have favored independent voices over Beijing lackies. Bai Gang, director of the Centre for Public Policy Research at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, complains, “Pro-democracy politicians have serious inadequacies in identification with the country. However, they have the upper hand over the patriotic camp in Hong Kong.”
Translation: In the PRC’s view the wrong folks are winning elections. As a result, Martin Lee has more popular legitimacy than does Chinese President Hu Jiantao. Observes the Wall Street Journal: “Mr. Lee is thus a leader of the only elected majority party in China. In free countries that would make him prime minister, not a pariah.”
Chinese officials are now making noises about allowing only “patriots” to participate in Hong Kong’s governance. And “patriots” do not include anyone who favors Taiwanese independence, opposes China’s Communist government, fought the anti-subversion legislation, or simply doesn’t back the Communist Party.
Beijing has even threatened to dissolve the Hong Kong legislature should pro-Beijing candidates lose control in elections scheduled for September. “None of the democrats are trustworthy,” explained Wen Wei Po, China’s designated spokesman on Hong Kong.
THERE IS NOTHING Washington can do to prevent the PRC leadership from engaging in unseemly name-calling when residents of Hong Kong ask China to keep its word. Nor can theU.S. force China to keep its word regarding democracy in Hong Kong, but at the very least, U.S. officials can talk to democrats in Hong Kong.
Sen. Sam Brownback invited Mr. Lee to Washington to testify last Thursday about the situation in Hong Kong. While here, Lee met with a number of legislators, as well as Secretary of State Colin Powell and NSC Adviser Condoleezza Rice. There was nothing seditious about any of this. Indeed, Mr. Lee stated his faith that China’s top leaders would “get it right.” He also wryly noted that he would have preferred to make his case in Beijing, but the PRC refuses to let him come.
Nevertheless, Chinese apparatchiks raised Cain. PRC Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing reiterated that China regards Hong Kong as its property. “The Chinese people have the resolve, the ability and the wisdom to maintain the stability and the prosperity of Hong Kong. We do not welcome, nor do we need, any outside intervention in Hong Kong affairs,” he said. The Foreign Ministry issued a statement denouncing all “irresponsible comments by outside forces.”
The display brought to mind earlier attempts to browbeat Washington into not allowing Taiwanese Presidents Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian to visit the U.S., even to make airline connections to other nations. The Clinton administration proved more than willing to enforce China’s wishes. A decade ago President Lee stopped at a military base in Hawaii on his way to Latin America. He was not allowed to leave the facility. A year later Lee sought a visa to attend an alumni gathering at Cornell University, his alma mater. Only under congressional pressure did the administration agree.
Four years ago, President Chen wanted to fly into Los Angeles on his way to Latin America, where a number of small states officially recognize Taiwan as an independent nation. The Clinton administration reluctantly allowed the visit, on the condition that he spend the entire 16-hours at his hotel. He was pressured to cancel a meeting with four congressmen.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?