100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

June 20, 2019 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

4

Thursday, June 20, 2019
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
OPINION

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.

ERIN WHITE
Editorial Page Editor

Zack Blumberg
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola
Timothy Spurlin
Nicholas Tomaino
Erin White
Ashley Zhang

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

CASSANDRA MANSUETTI
Editor in Chief

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

EMILY CONSIDINE | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT EMCONSID@UMICH.EDU

June marketing

ZACK BLUMBERG | COLUMN
F

or many Americans, the U.S.
trade war with China has
been fought abstractly. Stock
prices dropped, and reports have
come out explaining how tariffs on
Chinese imports will raise the price of
everything from iPhones to washing
machines.
Within
America,
the
conflict hasn’t escalated beyond tariffs
and empty threats, despite being, in
part, a conflict over global political
ideologies. However, 8,100 miles
away from Washington, the trade
war and America’s shifting approach
toward China have absolutely massive
implications for the future of the
Chinese autonomous territory of
Hong Kong. The region has existed
in a state of political limbo for the past
two decades, and increasing tensions
between China and the West could
mean the end of Hong Kong as we
know it.
Hong Kong, home to over 7.4
million people, is a global business
hub with a complicated past. After
the first Opium War ended in 1842,
the Qing Dynasty was forced to
give the island of Hong Kong — at
that point little more than a fishing
village — to the victorious British.
The British gradually expanded their
control beyond the original island,
and eventually pressured China into
signing a 99-year lease (traditionally
the longest possible real estate lease)
in 1898, which gave the British full
control over the territory. Largely
politically autonomous and culturally
British, the island prospered as an
outpost of Liberal democracy.
In the 1980s, with the 99-year
lease
nearing
its
end
and
no
specific plan for the future of Hong

Kong
in
place,
Chinese
leader
Deng
Xiaoping
introduced
the
“one country, two systems” idea.
Under Deng’s plan, Hong Kong
would become part of China, but
would
remain
administratively
autonomous, allowing it to operate
its own government with a capitalist
economic system, separate from
communist
China.
Hong
Kong
has operated under this model of
governance since the transfer of the
territory from Britain to China in
1997.
In the 22 years since Hong Kong
became Chinese, the “one country,
two systems” model has been largely
effective, if not perfect. Hong Kong
has continued to prosper financially,
and it is ranked as the freest economy
in the world. Simultaneously, the
government has remained largely
protective of citizens’ individual
rights. After thousands of protestors
took to the streets in 2003, Hong
Kong legislators agreed not to pass a
bill which would have allowed Hong
Kongers found guilty of treason,
sedition, secession or subversion
against mainland China’s government
to be sentenced to life in prison, which
would have allowed China greater
control over the city-state.
However,
things
have
been
changing in recent years. In 2014,
Hong Kongers took to the streets to
protest again after China announced
they would vet candidates for Hong
Kong’s 2017 elections, infringing on
the region’s freedom. In those 2017
elections, Carrie Lam, a pro-mainland
candidate,
was
elected
Chief
Executive of Hong Kong despite being
unpopular in the city. This is largely

thanks to the backing of the mainland
Chinese government, which controls
many seats on the election committee.
After being elected, Lam talked
about “The work of uniting society,”
along with other ideas which stand
in direct contrast to the “one country,
two systems” ideology. Now, another
round of protests have arisen after
Hong Kong’s government announced
their intent to pass a bill allowing
certain criminals to be extradited to
mainland China for trials. Lam, in a
style typical of the mainland Chinese
Communist Party, refused to even
engage with the protestors on a
political level, saying they were acting
like spoiled children.
All
of
China’s
recent
encroachments on Hong Kong’s
sovereignty, combined with a rapid
anti-China
shift
among
many
Western powers, puts Hong Kong’s
future in a very precarious position.
Though China consistently prioritizes
cultural and societal unity over both
human rights and diversity, it used
to make sense for China to respect
Hong Kong’s autonomy. When China
first reclaimed Hong Kong in 1998, it
was not the economic superpower it
is today. That year, China was seventh
in the world in GDP, well behind the
United States and a host of its allies:
Japan, Germany, Britain, France and
Italy.
At a time when the world was
still unquestionably dominated by
capitalist liberal democracies, having
a prosperous capitalist, cosmopolitan
outpost was a reputation booster for
China, a country known for repressive
communism
and
economically
totalitarian five-year plans. By keeping

Hong Kong open, China was able to
attract global investment to the city,
which is today home to the highest
concentration of ultra high-net-worth
individuals (defined as a net worth
over $30 million) in the world. It is also
considered an “alpha+” level world
city, meaning it is classified as a “city
which is a primary node in the global
economic network” (this is the second
highest ranking, after “alpha++”).
However,
China’s
geopolitical
position today is far different than it
was back in 1998, a change that has
drastically altered world affairs. By
promoting itself as a manufacturing
hub for wealthy Western nations,
utilizing economic protectionism and
occasionally just outright ignoring
global trade rules, China has rapidly
grown and accumulated wealth.
Today, with the second biggest gross
domestic product in the world, an
ambitious list of global projects such
as the Belt and Road Initiative and
expanding claims over regions such as
the South China Sea, China is clearly
a global superpower. China’s rapid
ascension means Hong Kong, which
once served as a valuable attraction
for western powers, is now more of a
liberalist thorn in the country’s side.
Now, with the U.S. leading a Western
charge against China over their illicit
trading practices, China has less
reason than ever to worry about the
west’s perception of liberalism in
Hong Kong.
When
analyzing
the
political
future of Hong Kong, it is important to
consider the geographical realities of
the situation. Though Hong Kongers
firmly identify as being from Hong
Kong, not China, as evidenced by their

history of large-scale protest against
Chinese encroachment on their rights,
and although the city is culturally
and economically quite Western,
Hong Kong’s defining feature is its
location. Ultimately, the city is still
an island located just across the river
from mainland China. In any dispute
over the political future of Hong
Kong, China, with its large army,
deep resource pool and geographical
position will have the upper hand
against both the West and Hong Kong
itself.
Taking everything into account,
it is clear that Deng’s idea for “one
country, two systems,” with a Hong
Kong largely free of Chinese political
influence, will soon be a thing of the
past. As China continues to expand
and flex its geopolitical strength, how
much influence it will exert over Hong
Kong is now the relationship’s major
issue. China has both grown more
powerful and become more repressive
in recent years, but Hong Kong is still
an economic and political bright spot,
even if it is not as crucial as it once was.
With that in mind, China will likely
act cautiously when approaching
Hong Kong, with the goal of limiting
its autonomy without causing too
great a global uproar. China will likely
not touch Hong Kong’s economic
freedoms, a major component of what
makes the city so attractive, but will
work to continuously chip away at the
city’s political liberalism, suppressing
dissent against mainland China and
forcing residents to follow communist
policies.

Zack Blumberg can be reached at

zblumber@umich.edu.

As the west turns on China, Hong Kong’s future hangs in the balance

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan