Must Beijing Use "One China" to Squeeze Out Hong Kong's "Two Systems?"

Must Beijing Use "One China" to Squeeze Out Hong Kong's "Two Systems?"
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation
July 4, 2014

Summary: All political problems are the result of conflict. Mature politicians know how to deal with conflict. Hong Kong's "Occupy Central" movement has made important progress. It has undergone continuous conflict, debate, and improvement. But will the movement elicit a positive response from Beijing? Will it help normalize democracy in Hong Kong? That remains to be seen. The key is Beijing's ability to adopt a more mature attitude when faced with Hong Konger political views and feelings. Deng Xiaoping advocated "peaceful reunification of the motherland." Beijing should respect his generous commitment to Hong Kongers, as embodied in his declaration of "one country, two systems."


Full Text Below:

On July 1, Hong Kongers took to the streets. Five hundred ten thousand people marched, demanding "real democratic elections" for Hong Kong's Chief Executive. From an outsider's perspective, the fight for democracy in Hong Kong has taken a giant leap forward. But within Hong Kong, the rift among Hong Kong democrats has deepened. Given its reaction, Beijing shows no desire to compromise.

The current "Occupy Central" protest, which followed on the tail of the July 1st march, was not organized by the original promoters of the "Occupy Central" movement. Rather it was organized on an ad hoc basis by two student groups. Hong Kong democrats are divided between "radicals" and "progressives." They are engaged in a power struggle and tug of war over policy. As a result an impatient new generation of students has taken the lead and radicalized the Hong Kong democracy movement.

One development is worrisome. The July 1st march is popular. The "Occupy Central" movement concluded without bloodshed. But success on the streets does not necessarily help the normal operation and development of democratic institutions. They may even do them a disservice. Hong Kong's democratic parties have engaged in long, drawn out disputes over "Occupy Central." Following the June referendum, Democratic Party Chairperson Emily Lau announced the party's withdrawal from the "Alliance for True Democracy." This reveals the profound differences within the "pan-democratic camp." A few years ago, Hong Kong democrats successfully fought for improvements in the democratic election system. Directly elected seats were increased. But the bitter fruit of this was fewer seats won. This shows that the success of street movements bears no relationship to the progress of democracy. Often, there is no direct correlation. This is something that members of the community must recognize as part of the democratic process.

The next thing we must await, is the CCP response. Beijing has long maintained a tough stance. Hong Kongers have repeatedly held referenda, marches, and occupied the Central District. They have repeatedly stepped over Beijing's red line. The general consensus is that Beijing is unlikely to make any concessions. Two days ago the "Global Times," the Chinese Communist Party's mouthpiece, published an editorial. It said that "The nation cannot possibly make concessions to the Hong Kong July 1st marchers." It characterized the dispute between the central government and Hong Kong as an case of "the nation making concessions." This shows how frustrated and angry the CCP is. But until the gavel comes down, Beijing still has room for accommodation. It can ease concerns among Hong Kongers without leaving outsiders with the impression that Beijing kowtowed to Hong Kong.

First. The July 1st marchers objected to how Chief Executive candidates are selected. The public wants more say in how the Hong Kong government selects the candidates. This desire is hardly radical. The selection of the Chief Executive candidates involves local support, and the SAR government's influence and oversight. This involves only Hong Kong's public interest. All of this falls under governance within the "two systems" framework. It involves no national level sovereignty issues whatsoever. Beijing need not perceive this as a challenge to the "one country" premise. 

Second. Beijing has agreed to allow universal suffrage in Hong Kong by 2017. This is an important step. If Beijing demands that a "Nomination Committee" filter the candidates, Hong Kongers will wonder whether the elections are being manipulated. Outsiders may mistakenly conclude that Beijing still prohibits direct elections in Hong Kong. Such conclusions would be counterproductive. One country, two systems stressed that "Hong Kongers would rule Hong Kong." If this is reduced to "Only patriotic Hong Kongers may rule Hong Kong," then "one country" would squeeze out "two systems." This would contradict the original spirit of reunification. Besides, Hong Kongers will surely exercise judgment in whom they select. If Beijing questions Hong Kongers' patriotism, won't that just alienate and anger them?

Third. The "real democratic elections," referendum proposed three alternatives. Different groups in Hong Kong proposed 29 alternatives. The point was merely to increase of candidates nominated by the public, and ensure that the "Nomination Committee" members were more representative. None of these proposals were terribly threatening. Democracies usually resort to party nominations. Public petitions are the exception. Many Hong Kongers, including the "Alliance for Real Democracy" and student groups, may not even realize that the wider the spectrum of nominees, the more difficult it will be for voters to concentrate their votes. This will reduce the candidate's chances of being elected. This is something that Hong Kong democrats shuld be aware of. They must not reflexively conduct referenda or take to the streets. On the other hand, this means that Beijing need not be afraid. It need not tie itself up in knots over this. Beijing would be better to demonstrate goodwill in order to win Hong Kongers' hearts and minds.

All political problems are the result of conflict. Mature politicians know how to deal with conflict. Hong Kong's "Occupy Central" movement has made important progress. It has undergone continuous conflict, debate, and improvement. But will the movement elicit a positive response from Beijing? Will it help normalize democracy in Hong Kong? That remains to be seen. The key is Beijing's ability to adopt a more mature attitude when faced with Hong Konger political views and feelings. Deng Xiaoping advocated "peaceful reunification of the motherland." Beijing should respect his generous commitment to Hong Kongers, as embodied in his declaration of "one country, two systems."

北京何需用「一中」擠壓香港的「兩制」？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.07.04 03:41 am

香港七一大遊行，五十一萬人上街表達了他們爭取特首「真普選」的意志。在外界看來，香港爭取民主的腳步確實往前跨出了一大步；但就香港內部而言，民主黨派間的裂痕卻反而因此更為加深；而觀察北京的反應，目前似乎仍看不出有退讓的跡象。

值得注意的是，這次七一遊行後的「占中」行動，並不是由「占中運動」的原始發起人所領導，而是由兩個「學生團體」臨時發難。亦即，香港民主黨派在「激進」與「漸進」的路線掙扎和拉鋸中，結果是不耐其煩的新生代學運團體跳出來帶頭衝刺，把調性拉向了更激進的一端。

讓人擔憂之處在於：「七一」大遊行固然展現了高人氣，「占中」行動也在未流血對峙中收場；但是，街頭的成功，對於體制的常態運作及民主政治的發展而言，有時卻未必是加分，甚至可能幫了倒忙。香港泛民主黨派為「占中」運動爭執甚久，在六月的公投後，民主黨主席劉慧卿更宣布退出「真普聯」，顯示「泛民」陣營歧見甚深。前幾年，民主派成功爭取了選制的改良，促使直選席次增加，結果卻只換得自身席次降低的苦果；這些，都說明街頭運動與民主進展的關係，往往不是成直線的正比。這點，也是一個社會的不同成員在民主磨合過程中，所必須認知與學習的事。

接下來，要看的就是中共將如何回應。以北京一向的強勢作風，對於香港人連續以公投、大遊行、占中的行動挑戰它畫下的紅線，一般研判，北京退讓的機率很低。這兩天，中共喉舌報「環球時報」已在社論中挑明：「香港七一遊行，國家不可能讓步」；把香港人與中央政府的爭議，輕易上綱上線到「國家讓步」，多少反映了中共的惱羞成怒。然而，我們認為，在最後的辦法拍板定案之前，北京仍然有些調整空間，既舒緩香港人民的憂慮，又不致讓外界感到北京向香港低頭或讓步。

首先，七一遊行所爭的是特首候選人的產生方式，主要是市民對港府的產生方式希望有更多發言權，這個願望其實並不激進。特首的產生方式，牽涉到的主要是在地民意對特首以及特區政府的影響力與監督權；這涉及的只是香港的公共利益，是「兩制」之下「治理」層次的問題，並不涉及一國層次的「主權」。因此，北京沒有必要認為這是對「一國兩制」的挑戰。

其次，北京既已同意讓香港在二○一七年進行「普選」，這是重要的一步；如果竟因要用「提名委員會」來過濾候選人，而讓港人質疑普選將流於「被操控」，或讓全世界誤以為北京仍禁止香港進行直選，都是得不償失的事。一國兩制原本強調的是「港人治港」，現在若將之限縮為「愛國的港人治港」，這其實是利用「一國」來擠壓「兩制」，違背了當初香港回歸的歷史背景。何況，香港人民的選擇應該自有分寸，如果北京居然質疑港人的「愛國心」，怎麼不讓他們因心寒而轉生憤怒？

第三，不論是這次「真普選」公投的三項方案，或是香港各界所提出的廿九個替代方案，其重點不外是增加民間提名的管道，並提高「提名委員會」成員的代表性；這些，都不是什麼洪水猛獸。事實上，民主國家常見的模式是政黨提名，公民連署則是少數例外；然而，包括「真普聯」及學生團體在內的許多港人可能都未意識到：提名越是廣泛，將導致投票越是不易集中，反而削弱了當選的機率。這點，香港民運界要有所警惕，不能一味以公投或上街人數龐大為已足；從另一方面，這也意味北京毋需對此過度戒懼而自縛手腳，不如釋出一些善意，換取港人的歸心。

一切政治問題都由衝突而產生，政治家的成熟與否就表現在如何處理衝突。香港「占中運動」的發展，經過不斷的衝突、辯論和修正，取得了重要的進展。然而，這些運動的成果能否換得北京的積極回應，乃至有助於香港民主的正常化，則仍有待觀察；其關鍵，就在北京的主政者能否以更成熟的政治態度來正視香港人的意見與感受，也尊重當初鄧小平「和平統一祖國」宣示下對港人「一國兩制」的寬大承諾。