10 July 1997 Edition
The business of no democracy in Hong Kong
By Dara MacNeil
The problem for those within the British establishment who wish to attack China's undemocratic rule of Hong Kong is that, as the territory's former colonial masters, Britain's rule hardly differed in style or substance. And by the time Britain was due to vacate Hong Kong they had not, despite protestations to the contrary, shaped the territory into a paradigm of democratic governance.
And like all losers, the colony's former rulers have now begun to apportion blame for this failure - despite having had 150 years to rectify it - amongst themselves.
According to Chris Patten, the colony's last governor, the fault for subverting democratic government in Hong Kong lies squarely with successive British governments. Patten, who was governor from 1992-97, has obviously been stung by charges that his much-lauded (by himself) programme of democratic reforms amounted to little more than a rearguard PR exercise for the Empire. Thus, he now blames Margaret Thatcher and Geoffrey Howe for undermining his `democratic project'. It was Thatcher and her then Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe who negotiated the return of Hong Kong to China, in 1984. Specifically, Patten claims that Howe entered into a `gentleman's agreement' with the Chinese to effectively prevent any direct elections taking place in the colony.
In the past, Howe had attacked Patten's minor reforms by claiming, remarkably, that he had `harmed the prospects for democracy' in Hong Kong and had also deeply angered the Chinese. Indeed, `angering the Chinese' appears to cause the former Foreign Secretary no end of anxiety. Last January, Howe travelled to Hong Kong and warned its media to `show sensible self-restraint' following the return to Chinese rule.
Howe's eagerness to please Beijing might appear puzzling, unless you take into account his extra-curricular financial activities. Howe is an adviser to Cable & Wireless, who own 57% of Hong Kong Telecom. He is also a non-executive director of a company called BICC, which has extensive interests in a £13 billion contract to develop Hong Kong's new airport.
Obviously, to retain and develop their lucrative interests, both companies would need to maintain good relations with China.
Political disagreements aside, lucrative contracts will also play a crucial role in the decision to enlarge the NATO military alliance, by inviting Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to apply for membership.
While President Clinton appears to be experiencing difficulty in selling the enlargement project to some in the US, that opposition is expected to dissipate now that the country's exceptionally wealthy arms manufacturers have begun to direct money towards lobbying in support of the enlargement project. At stake are arms contracts worth $22 billion, as the new NATO members are encouraged to modernise their military infrastructure in advance of entry to NATO. Already Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have entered into deals with US arms companies, while countries like Slovenia and Romania have also begun the re-arming process in expectation of an invitation from NATO.
The re-arming is proceeding despite public warnings from the International Monetary Fund that the region's fragile and fledgling economies can ill-afford to embark on such a shopping spree.
And quite apart from the obvious interests of arms manufacturers - a crucial component of the US economy - no advocate of NATO enlargement has yet satisfactorily answered the central question: precisely who are NATO enlarging against? Have the generals being watching reruns of Independence Day and The X Files?
The problem for those within the British establishment who wish to attack China's undemocratic rule of Hong Kong is that, as the territory's former colonial masters, Britain's rule hardly differed in style or substance. And by the time Britain was due to vacate Hong Kong they had not, despite protestations to the contrary, shaped the territory into a paradigm of democratic governance.
And like all losers, the colony's former rulers have now begun to apportion blame for this failure - despite having had 150 years to rectify it - amongst themselves.
According to Chris Patten, the colony's last governor, the fault for subverting democratic government in Hong Kong lies squarely with successive British governments. Patten, who was governor from 1992-97, has obviously been stung by charges that his much-lauded (by himself) programme of democratic reforms amounted to little more than a rearguard PR exercise for the Empire. Thus, he now blames Margaret Thatcher and Geoffrey Howe for undermining his `democratic project'. It was Thatcher and her then Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe who negotiated the return of Hong Kong to China, in 1984. Specifically, Patten claims that Howe entered into a `gentleman's agreement' with the Chinese to effectively prevent any direct elections taking place in the colony.
In the past, Howe had attacked Patten's minor reforms by claiming, remarkably, that he had `harmed the prospects for democracy' in Hong Kong and had also deeply angered the Chinese. Indeed, `angering the Chinese' appears to cause the former Foreign Secretary no end of anxiety. Last January, Howe travelled to Hong Kong and warned its media to `show sensible self-restraint' following the return to Chinese rule.
Howe's eagerness to please Beijing might appear puzzling, unless you take into account his extra-curricular financial activities. Howe is an adviser to Cable & Wireless, who own 57% of Hong Kong Telecom. He is also a non-executive director of a company called BICC, which has extensive interests in a £13 billion contract to develop Hong Kong's new airport.
Obviously, to retain and develop their lucrative interests, both companies would need to maintain good relations with China.
Money to enlarge NATO
Political disagreements aside, lucrative contracts will also play a crucial role in the decision to enlarge the NATO military alliance, by inviting Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to apply for membership.
While President Clinton appears to be experiencing difficulty in selling the enlargement project to some in the US, that opposition is expected to dissipate now that the country's exceptionally wealthy arms manufacturers have begun to direct money towards lobbying in support of the enlargement project. At stake are arms contracts worth $22 billion, as the new NATO members are encouraged to modernise their military infrastructure in advance of entry to NATO. Already Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have entered into deals with US arms companies, while countries like Slovenia and Romania have also begun the re-arming process in expectation of an invitation from NATO.
The re-arming is proceeding despite public warnings from the International Monetary Fund that the region's fragile and fledgling economies can ill-afford to embark on such a shopping spree.
And quite apart from the obvious interests of arms manufacturers - a crucial component of the US economy - no advocate of NATO enlargement has yet satisfactorily answered the central question: precisely who are NATO enlarging against? Have the generals being watching reruns of Independence Day and The X Files?