The Legacy of Colonialism and the Hong Kong Riots with Carl Zha
Recently, the mainstream Western media has been flooded with news surrounding the latest outbreak of protests in Hong Kong. These protests are portrayed in an overwhelming positive light as peaceful demonstrators seeking only vague notions “democracy” and “freedom.”
The full spectrum of mainstream media has shown overwhelming support for the brave, freedom-loving people of Hong Kong, while strongly condemning the tyrannical, authoritarian Chinese government. Such a clear-cut comparison harkens back to portrayal of President Maduro of Venezuela as a bloody dictator, and the opposition as nothing more than sincere, patriotic freedom fighters.
Far too often, opposition movements, whether they be in Venezuela or Hong Kong, are completely sanitized and decontextualized. Their struggle is portrayed as nothing but peaceful and democratic and is sure to tug at every good liberal’s heartstrings.
However, what is repeatedly missing from mainstream discourse on Hong Kong is any kind of historical background to help contextualize the situation on the ground. The mainstream media, with very few exceptions, also continuously refuses to report on the staggering amount of violence and vandalism carried out by the so-called “peaceful” protesters.
In order to gain more insight into the situation, I asked Carl Zha, host of the Silk and Steel podcast, to provide some context and offer an alternative analysis to the ongoing Hong Kong protests. We started off our interview with some background on the legacy and impacts of British colonialism in Hong Kong.
“Looking for a colonial outpost on the coast of China to facilitate trade with China (mostly in Opium), British Empire forced Qing Dynasty China to cede Hong Kong to Britain after 2 Opium Wars. Britain received Hong Kong Island after 1st Opium War (1839–1842), and Kowloon Peninsula after 2nd Opium War (1856–1860). These are urban heart of Hong Kong today. Then after Japan defeated China in 1st Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895), Britain moved in with other Imperialist Powers to carve up China further.
Britain forcibly leased New Territory, largest land district in Hong Kong today, for 99 years. The lease expired in 1997. Thatcher government tried to renew the lease with People’s Republic of China (PRC) government in 1980s. Deng said no. After consulting with British military brass who told her it’s impossible to defend Hong Kong from Chinese attack, Thatcher went back to negotiation table and agreed to Chinese demand for return of Hong Kong, Hong Island, Kowloon, New Territory, all of it to China in 1997.
China and UK signed Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984 which China promised to keep Hong Kong’s separate governance and way of life for 50 years until 2047 under ‘One Country, Two Systems’ formulation.”
When the media firestorm surrounding the Hong Kong protests first began, I had little to no historical knowledge of Hong Kong. I was unaware of the fact that Hong Kong has historically been a part of China for thousands of years, up until 1842. Since that time, Hong Kong has traded hands between Japanese and British Imperial rule.
The popular notion that Hong Kong is somehow independent or detached from mainland China is simply a consequence of imperialism. Regardless, mainstream media outlets completely ignore the historical realities of Hong Kong in order to form a narrative that supports Western influence in the region.
The current protests are often attributed to a proposed extradition bill, which would have allowed China to extradite criminals back to the mainland that might have fled to Hong Kong to escape justice.
In fact, the case that inspired this bill involved a man who strangled his girlfriend to death, stuffed her body into a suitcase, and left her in the bushes of a subway station in Taipei, the capital of Taiwan. He subsequently fled to Hong Kong to avoid persecution (important side note: Hong Kong currently has extradition treaties with the US, UK, Canada and Australia). Still, the extradition bill was pulled by the government of Hong Kong after the initial wave of protestants.
But is this single bill really to blame for all the chaos that has ensued? Or are there deeper reasons for such popular discontent? I asked Carl for his analysis of the social and economic basis for the Hong Kong protests.
The Extradition Bill is just a trigger for the Hong Kong protest. Deeper reason is the unease and anxiety many Hong Kongers feel toward the future with Mainland China, with One Country, Two Systems due to expire by 2047, merely 28 years away.
Economically, Hong Kong working class people are squeezed by increasing unaffordable housing prices and diminished economic prospect. Ironically “One Country, Two System” which gives Hong Kong high degree of autonomy preserved British Colonial structures intact, allowing local Tycoons to dominate Hong Kong politics and economic life. Hong Kong government is in cahoots with Real Estate Tycoons who artificially inflate land prices because HK government derives much of its revenues from land sales to developers.
This was a feature of Colonial Hong Kong because British Empire had mandated its colonies to be self-sustaining. Land in Hong Kong technically all belongs to the government. As manufacturing offshored to Chinese mainland since 1980s, HK economy became increasingly financialized. The two pillars of Hong Kong economy became finance and real estate.
The new service economy only served to accrue wealth at the very top. Hong Kong youth faced very similar set of problem as their Millennial counterpart in the West. Many young people are forced to live with parents thru 20s until even their 30s, because they couldn’t afford place of their own.
There are lots of legitimate grievances and discontent among Hong Kong youth. Great majority of youth grew up after 1997 handover to China, so British Colonial rule, which they were too young to remember, became a mythic Golden Age where supposedly everything was better.
Instead of anger and resentment being directed at Hong Kong Tycoons who caused them all these misery, they are misdirected towards Mainland China and Mainland Chinese immigrants and tourists.Much the same way some Americans redirect their economic anxiety to anger toward Mexican and Latino Immigrants. While continuing economic integration with mainland China is bitterly resisted because some Hong Kongers “don’t want HK to be just another Chinese city”
Carl brings up several interesting points. It is important to understand that many of the Hong Kong protesters have legitimate concerns and grievances, including the rising costs of living which in turn have angered many of the youth.
However, this anger has been completely misdirected against those responsible, and instead the blame is only being placed on Beijing. This sort of misdirection is very typical amongst movements who lack a concrete set of goals or ideological foundation.
The once-formidable Occupy movement in the United States is another prime example of this. These movements tend to either fizzle out or are appropriated wholesale to suite some other purpose (see: Occupy Democrats).
There is a popular notion among the Western left that movements for social change do not require any political leaders or ideological basis, and many of them are currently pointing towards Hong Kong as an example. I asked Carl if he believes these protestors may have some left inclinations, or any sort of coherent ideology.
“Hong Kong protest is a mass movement without clear ideology other than strong undercurrent of Hong Kong nativism. As often happens with mass movement without clear ideology, they often get co-opted and manipulated by forces with clear agenda. Here Enters the United States which is in midst of starting an incipient Cold War 2.0 with China.
With funding from CIA front group such as National Endowment for Democracy (NED), US is helping to fund opposition groups, activist leaders in effort to destabilize Hong Kong, a major financial center of China. Hong Kong activists have been trained by Oslo Freedom Forum famous for sponsoring color revolutions world wide.
HKG have suspended the Extradition Bill in June, and HK leader Carrie Lam publicly stated that the Bill is dead in July, now Carrie Lam has announced formal withdrawal of the Bill. Yet protest continues to escalate into violence. Because certain forces certainly do not want to see the protest die down. The so called “leaderless movement’ nature of the protest meant there will be no responsible adults coming forward to negotiate with Hong Kong government to seek compromise and de-escalation.”
As Carl explained above, these protests don’t seem to have any indication of being “leftist,” or even progressive, in nature. In fact, the protestors can be frequently seen waving US and colonial Union Jack flags, while displaying signs begging Trump to “liberate” Hong Kong. But while the protests appear to be ideologically bankrupt, the United States is continuing to play a significant role in their execution.
For example, a statement by Michael Pillsbury, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, revealed that “we have a large consulate there that’s in charge of taking care of the Hong Kong Policy Act passed by Congress to insure democracy in Hong Kong, and we have also funded millions of dollars of programs through the National Endowment for Democracy [NED] … so in that sense the Chinese accusation is not totally false.”
One would think such a blatant admission would receive more attention from the mainstream media, and especially the left. However, there are many in the Western left who still cling to their ideological biases against China and continue to support the Hong Kong protest movement. To them, I ask: if tangible evidence surfaced that China was giving substantial financial support and tactical advice to radical protesters in the United States, what do you think the response from the US government would be?
At this point, the fact is abundantly clear that the attitude towards the Hong Kong protestors in the West is largely sympathetic. Even progressive Democratic primary candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have shown their support, with Sanders referring to the protestors as “an inspiration to us all,” and calling on the Chinese government, ironically, to “refrain from violence.” But how do mainland Chinese people feel about the protests? And how (or when) will these protests come to an end?
The mainland Chinese attitude toward Hong Kong protest initially run from a mild curiosity to apathetic indifference because it’s seen as a local Hong Kong affair. But after the Hong Kong protesters started to harass mainland tourists and detained and beat up mainland Chinese journalist at the Hong Kong airport, Indifference had turn into anger.
Because it’s understood on mainland China that these mainland travelers were attacked because of their identity as mainlanders. This caused many mainland Chinese particularly youth to use VPN to flood into Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to air their views which Twitter and Facebook responded by banning many accounts originated in mainland China as “bots.”
As protests turn into riots, rioters attack public infrastructure particularly Hong Kong Metro systems, disrupt daily lives of ordinary HKers. They are already alienating large sector of the HK public.
The Chinese central government has so far been very restrained, letting HK gov and police handle the situation.The protests will likely continue as even opening of schools have not affect the intensity and duration of the protest. Undoubtedly this is what US gov like to see as well. Quite likely protest/riot will continue thru Sept to the 70th anniversary of the founding of PRC on Oct 1st.
What rioters have done is push general HK public to demand firm action from the government to put a stop to the riot and disruption of normal everyday lives. In short term, HK economy will suffer as mainland Chinese tourists already started to stay away. In longer term, we may be witnessing the beginning of the end to “ One Country, Two Systems”
As Carl explained, the Hong Kong protests have been incredibly disruptive and violent, and Beijing has demonstrated extraordinary restraint. But how and when these protests will end is not very clear. What is abundantly clear, however, is the class character and material basis of the protests themselves. To put it bluntly, these protests are in no way leftist, progressive, or even peaceful. On the contrary, the protests so far have largely consisted of xenophobic rhetoric against mainlanders, violence against civilians based on their nationality, and millions of dollars of financial aid pouring in from the US.
Going forward, I strongly urge those on the left to examine international affairs with a critical eye. The United States, through its stenographers in the mainstream media, continually regurgitates the same tired rhetoric against governments which are determined to be “hostile” to the interests of Western capital.
The mainstream media universally projects a dystopian image when reporting on countries such as Venezuela, Nicaragua, the DPRK, Cuba or China, and has little room for nuance when dealing with any of these countries. That is why it is imperative to understand the material conditions behind the stories our media institutions report on and seek out alternative perspectives. Only then can we begin to counter these disingenuous narratives and foster a more principled stance against imperialism.
Sources and Supplemental Material
Extradition Case
Western Media Support for Hong Kong “freedom fighters”
Media Bias on Venezuela
Violence from protesters
1.https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3022782/global-times-journalist-beaten-hong-kong-protesters-given
2.https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201908/28/WS5d6670c3a310cf3e3556868a.html
3.https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201908/27/WS5d64cf5da310cf3e355681da.html
Hong Kong Extradition pacts with other countries
Evidence of United States influence in Hong Kong
