Two forces work in favor of China

Two forces work in favor of China

By Lie Tek Tjeng

JAKARTA (JP): How should we interpret the historic handover of
Hong Kong? After 156 years under British colonial rule, Hong Kong
was returned to China on midnight June 30 based on a joint
declaration signed on Dec. 19, 1984 by the then British Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher and her Chinese counterpart Zhao
Ziyang.

It seems that in the past, realpolitik (meaning Britain's
economic interests) "persuaded" the governments of the time to
force open China under the banner of free trade (starting with
the first Opium War of 1839-1842).

Similarly it can perhaps be said that contemporary realpolitik
(meaning Britain's present and future economic stake in the
immense China market) seems to have prevailed over idealism
(primarily human rights and morality) in the decision as to how
to return Hong Kong to China.

This seems to be inevitable since China has shown
determination to reassert its sovereignty over its "lost
territory", following the expiration of the 99-year lease of the
New Territories.

In other words, yielding to the seemingly inevitable appears
to have been, and will continue to be, the best course of action
for practitioners of Britain's realpolitik-guided foreign policy.
This is especially the case now because antagonizing Beijing
could be detrimental to Britain's present and future economic
interests in China, which is predicted by the World Bank to
emerge as an economic superpower in the 21st century.

However this view is not shared by idealists, moralists and
their sympathizers who decried the decision as a betrayal of Hong
Kong and a late 20th century manifestation of the duplicity of
"perfide Albion" (treacherous Britain).

They say only this can explain why Britain's "iron lady"
(Thatcher) signed the joint declaration. As a member of the
Conservative Party, a party traditionally recognized as the
champion of Britain's national interest as expressed in the
slogan "right or wrong, my country", she could have been expected
to have acted differently.

One could also wonder whether the Joint Declaration was
intended to strengthen the reformist/right wing of the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP) as it was negotiated and signed when
reformists Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang held the top party and
government posts of CCP general secretary and prime minister
respectively.

However if this consideration persuaded the British Foreign
Office to approve the Joint Declaration, then they must have
since been disappointed because subsequent political developments
in China "necessitated" paramount leader Deng Xiaoping to replace
them with leaders more acceptable to the left-wingers.

Li Peng, the adopted son of the late PM Zhou Enlai and the
protege of the late conservative economist Chen Yun, became prime
minister in 1987 and Jiang Zemin, who hailed from the radical
stronghold Shanghai, took over as party general secretary the
following year. Jiang was subsequently also given the additional
post as chairman of the People's Republic of China

All patriotic Chinese, regardless of origin, cannot but hail
the return of Hong Kong as the symbolic ending of China's period
of national humiliation that had started with the Opium War and
reduced China to a "semi-colony", to use Mao Zedong's famous
words.

But it must not be forgotten that some Koumintang (KMT)
fanatics, who are still obsessed with the extermination of the
communist threat no matter what the cost and how long it will
take, cannot look on the mainlanders as fellow Chinese.

Still influenced by Cold War anticommunist propaganda, the
People's Republic of China (PRC) evokes the image of their arch-
enemy, the ruling CCP elite and not the millions of long-
suffering fellow Chinese who are longing for a better life and
need to be helped.

Hence, the reunification of Hong Kong and perhaps Taiwan --
whose prosperity are recognized to be dependent on their
relations with the mainland -- cannot but be viewed as the
sacrifice of democracy to "godless communism/socialism with
Chinese characteristics" as so vocally expressed by Western and
other international media.

However if the division and hatred among the Chinese people
cannot somehow be bridged, then the Asia-Pacific region is
heading for continued turmoil and war and not for stability,
prosperity and peace, as hoped for by everyone.

Seen in this context, the Taiwan government's outright
rejection of Beijing's offer of "one country, two systems" for
the reunification of Taiwan without awaiting its concrete
manifestation in the case of Hong Kong is regrettable for the
sake of stability and peace in the Asia-Pacific region, even
though it can be understood psychologically.

In the 1930s and early 1940s the CCP's policy of "all Chinese
should unite and not fight each other in facing the common
foreign Japanese enemy" proved to be more appealing to Chinese
patriotism than the KMT policy of "first exterminating the
communist bandits before turning on the foreign Japanese enemy".

This resulted in the majority of people supporting, either
actively or passively, the CCP against its opponent, hence
leading to its victories on the mainland in 1949 after which its
enemy fled to Taiwan.

Similarly, Beijing's policy of championing the national
aspiration of the reunification of Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan
with the mainland cannot but appeal to all Chinese nationalists
as the restoration of China's long-lost territorial integrity.

In contrast, Taiwan's advocacy of "an independent Taiwan"
policy cannot but sound like separatism to true patriots, even
evoking the image of a disintegrating China being left at the
mercy of foreign powers, as was really the case from the Opium
War until the founding of the PRC in 1949.

If this is true, then we have to conclude objectively that
Beijing seems to have the better argument, which should triumph
eventually, and people who are really concerned with the bigger
picture of stability and peace in the Asia-Pacific region are
perhaps well-advised to pay attention to this.

Moreover Beijing can reassure itself about the reunification
of Taiwan, by keeping its promises regarding the reunification of
Hong Kong. Two powerful historical forces, Taiwan's economic
interests and Chinese nationalism, are working in favor of
Beijing.

Talking about nationalism in general, and Chinese nationalism
in particular, reminded me of a conversation with a Chinese
student I had in 1954, my first year at Harvard.

When he heard I came from Indonesia, he asked whether I was
planning to go back after I had completed my studies. I answered:
"Yes, I think so, because if I have a historical role to play, I
feel it is in my country." When I asked him the same question, he
answered: "Yes, I am going back to China."

When I, remembering the civil war between the CCP and the KMT,
asked: "Do you mean the PRC or Taiwan?" he answered with the
counter question, "Don't you agree that China is the country
containing most of the Chinese people?"

He continued: "I have until now not paid much attention to
politics. I have in the past, not tried to join the ruling KMT
elite, and I do not intend to join the ruling CCP elite in the
near future; my commitment is to the common people who have
suffered so much since the 19th century."

We never ran into each other again but his commitment to the
people, as stated more than forty years ago, has remained
engraved in my mind forever.

The writer is an expert at the Institute of Strategic Studies
of Indonesia and an observer of international affairs.