Beijing Speaks of a Meeting of the Minds: Why Not Begin with Hong Kong?

Beijing Speaks of a Meeting of the Minds: Why Not Begin with Hong Kong?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 7, 2014

Executive Summary: When Xi Jinping spoke recently about cross-Strait relations. he spoke of a "meeting of the minds." An opportunity has arisen. The Hong Kong government has declared that it will "postpone second phase consultation on political reform," and that "the door is always open to dialogue." Beijing is not about to have the Hong Kong government open the door to dialogue, yet refuse to give an inch. Tanks cleared Tiananmen Square. Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts in Thailand ripped the country apart, as did similar conflicts in Ukraine. By contrast, current developments in Hong Kong offer an opportunity to ease confrontation. Doing so may not be easy. But if Beijing really wishes to ensure a "meeting of the minds" in Hong Kong over one country, two systems, it must first enhance its own political credibility, not merely demand that people disperse without giving an inch. Why not initiate a meeting of the minds, beginning with Hong Kong?

Full Text Below:

When Xi Jinping spoke recently about cross-Strait relations. he spoke of a "meeting of the minds." If Beijing is serious about this, why not begin with Hong Kong?

On Sunday night the Hong Kong Federation of Students and Hong Kong Government officials convened their first "preparatory dialogue meeting." Yesterday, Monday, was a work day. Occupy Central members announced that they would not disperse, but would clear the roads. For the most part, Hong Kong returned to normal. People could get to their places of work. Primary school students could get to their schools. The government decided not to disperse the gathered masses.

Amidst the struggle between the government and the people, this was an achievement worthy of recognition. It may be a turning point in the successive waves of confrontation between the government and the people. Contrast this with the masses in Thailand and Ukraine who stormed government buildings, or with the Tiananmen Incident. The Occupy Central movement has now reached a turning point. If a mutually acceptable solution can be found, the Hong Kong experience could establish a new paradigm for global democracy. We can now see the light at the end of the tunnel. We hope that Beijing, the Hong Kong government, and the public will establish a model worthy of emulation, and turn a negative event in the history of Hong Kong into a positive event in the history of China.

The ball is now in Zhongnanhai's court. Beijing must seek a "meeting of the minds" with the Hong Kong public. As the Hong Kong Federation of Students put it, "Political problems requiire political solutions. Talks and compromise with the government are the only way. Beijing simply demand that the people disperse, while it refuses to give an inch." When pepper spray and tear gas fail to solve the problem, Beijing must seek a "meeting of the minds" with the people of Hong Kong. It cannot refuse to give an inch.

As we look back, we see that "sham universal suffrage" was merely the result of bureaucratic inertia. Why did Beijing insist that universal suffrage must be subject to "filters?" Why did it assume that "screening" could filter out "unpatriotic people who do not love Hong Kong?" As long as the relationship between Hong Kong and the Mainland remains the same, why didn't Beijing think it could not acquire an absolute majority under "genuine universal suffrage"? Why did it feel compelled to resort to tear gas and batons to maintain "sham universal suffrage"? During the Occupy Central turmoil, Beijing did everything it could to uphold "sham universal suffrage," a weapon that ripped Hong Kong apart. This revealed Beijing's weakness and timidity. It undermined the credibility of Deng Xiaoping's historic legacy of "one country two systems." By now Beijing must realize that tear gas cannot maintain "one country, two systems." The correct way is to seek a "meeting of the minds."

As matters stand, Beijing looks both weak and guilty. For example, Beijing invoked the "rule of law." It accused the Occupy Central movement of interfering with the conduct of daily life. But those advocating the "rule of law" used "sham universal suffrage" to violate the law of democracy. In today's Hong Kong, those who advocate "sham universal suffrage" hae tear gas. Those who advocate "genuine universal suffrage" can only occupy the streets. Faced with tear gas. whither any "meeting of the minds?"

In fact, the election of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council in Hong Kong by means of genuine universal suffrage under "one country, two systems" was a commitment made to Hong Kong by Deng Xiaoping and three generations of CCP political leaders. It is the only way to ensure a "meeting of the minds" with Hong Kong society. At this juncture, the Beijing authorities should be affirming "genuine universal suffrage." Such an affirmation should been seen as honoring a political commitment made by Deng Xiaoping. It should be seen as the communist regime's test bed for its policy of "Letting some of people experience democracy first." In other words, it should see this as a political achievement. It should do everything in its power to realize it. It should not see it as a political burden, and use tear gas against the public. Beijing has no reason to oppose "genuine universal suffrage" or refuse to give an inch.

Beijing's political resources are abundant. The protestors are disorganized and weak. They face increasing social pressures from anti-Occupy Central forces. Beijing must not be short-sighted. It must resort to force to suppress public discontent, but instead "free up its mind." It must seek solutions from a higher perspective. That is the way to reach a "meeting of the minds"with Hong Kong society, and to resolve the "sham universal suffrage" induced public controversy. If Beijing is confident, and does not have a guilty conscience, it can freely make concessions. These should not be seen purely as concessions to the protesters. They should be seen as a means of enhancing its own political credibiliy, and upholding the reputation of Deng Xiaoping's "one country, two systems." From this perspective, there is no need to concern oneself over who made concessions today. This is a rare opportunity for Beijing to adopt a political initiative that can enhance its credibility.

An opportunity has arisen. The Hong Kong government has declared that it will "postpone second phase consultation on political reform," and that "the door is always open to dialogue." Beijing is not about to have the Hong Kong government open the door to dialogue, yet refuse to give an inch. Tanks cleared Tiananmen Square. Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts in Thailand ripped the country apart, as did similar conflicts in Ukraine. By contrast, current developments in Hong Kong offer an opportunity to ease confrontation. Doing so may not be easy. But if Beijing really wishes to ensure a "meeting of the minds" in Hong Kong over one country, two systems, it must first enhance its own political credibility, not merely demand that people disperse without giving an inch.

Why not initiate a meeting of the minds, beginning with Hong Kong?

北京談心靈契合 何妨先從香港做起
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.10.07 11:07 am

上圖為今年9月28日香港為爭真普選抗議情形。下圖則為1989年5月17日北京天安門廣場上人民阻擋車子前進情形。美聯社

習近平最近談兩岸關係，使用了「心靈契合」這個新語彙；倘若北京心存此念，「心靈契合」何妨先從香港做起？

周日夜間，香港學聯與港府官員進行首場「對話籌備會」；昨天周一上班日，在占中人員「不撤離／開通道」的狀態下，香港大致回復了政府上班及小學以上學校上課的情勢，港府亦未對仍占據街道的群眾清場。

客觀而論，這是港府及抗爭群眾間十分值得肯定的共同成就，也可能是這一波官民對峙覓得出口的關鍵性拐點。若與泰國及烏克蘭的群眾風暴相比，或與天安門事件對照，此次占中風潮經此轉折，倘能出現一個各方大致能夠相互接受的解決方案，則此次香港事件亦不無可能在舉世民主運動中創造出一個新典範。值此風暴中出現曙光之際，我們期望北京、港府及抗爭的港民皆能以創造典範自期，使得此一可能負向發展的事件，能在香港歷史、中國歷史上展現重大的正面意義。

責任主要在中南海，方法則是必須追求北京與港人的「心靈契合」。簡單一句話，如學聯所說：「政治問題政治解決，政府商討及讓步是唯一辦法，不能只教市民撤走及解散，自己則寸步不讓。」當胡椒噴霧及催淚彈不能解決問題時，北京必須另覓能與港人「心靈契合」的辦法，那就是不能寸步不讓。

如今回顧，「假普選」根本是出自官僚慣性思維的「莫須有的議題」。為什麼北京堅持「普選」須經「篩選」？又為什麼認為若不經「篩選」，就一定會選出「不愛國／不愛港」之人？以香港與大陸的依存關係，北京因何沒有自信能以「絕對多數制」來贏得香港的「真普選」？何況，難道永遠要用催淚彈及警棍來維持「假普選」？在這一波占中風潮中，北京不啻是在全力維護這個已成為撕裂香港之凶器的「莫須有的假普選」。這不但顯露了北京的理屈與心虛，更不啻嚴重地毀傷了鄧小平所創「一國兩制」的歷史聲譽。北京如今應當已悟出一個道理，那就是：在「一國兩制」中，催淚彈不可恃，追求「心靈契合」始是正辦。

處此情勢，北京是理屈與心虛的。例如：北京談的「法治」，是占中妨害了市民生活；但占中者主張的「法治」，則是「假普選」根本違反了民主政治的「法後之法」。今日香港，是主張「假普選」者擁有催淚彈，但主張「真普選」者只能占據街道、面對催淚彈。如此，「心靈契合」將從何談起？

其實，在香港舉行「特首及立法會議員真普選」，是「一國兩制」的應然及必然歸趨。這當視為鄧小平以降中共三代領導班子的政治承諾，更是維繫香港社會「心靈契合」的不二路徑。此際，北京當局應將趨近「真普選」，視為兌現鄧小平政治承諾的共同責任，亦視為中共政權一方「讓一部分人先民主起來」的政治實驗田；也就是說，應當視此為政治的昇華與成就而盡力加以完成，不應視之為政治負荷而欲以催淚彈來對抗民意。然則，北京即無理由在「真普選」上「寸步不讓」。

在當前情勢中，北京的政治資源豐足，而抗爭者的組織性及持久性較弱，且又逐漸面對反占中的社會壓力；北京不應以短視眼光操作，想要以力壓人，而應「解放思想」，向久遠及高大處來找尋解決方案，也就是真正從重建香港社會「心靈契合」處，來解決「假普選」引發的民意爭議。北京若有自信，若不心虛，自有「讓步」的空間；這當然不應視為只是對抗爭者的讓步，更應視為北京當局藉此提升了自己的政治境界，也保全了鄧小平「一國兩制」的聲譽。準此，也就無須用「看誰讓步」的角度來看今日情勢，因為這正是中共主動創造政治昇華與成就的難得機遇。

契機似已出現。港府宣示「推遲第二階段政改諮詢」，且聲稱「對話大門永遠開著」；北京不會讓港府開著「對話大門」，卻「寸步不讓」吧？與天安門坦克車清場、泰國紅黃對抗及烏克蘭撕裂國家對比，此次香港風潮能走到今日出現緩解契機的地步，誠屬不易；北京若真想在香港實施「心靈契合」的「一國兩制」，首須提升自己的政治境界，不能「只教市民解散，自己寸步不讓」。

心靈契合，何妨先從香港做起？