THE HONG KONG CRISIS AND THE WESTERN OPPOSITION TO DECOLONISATION

By Edward Thomson

Following the movement of decolonisation after the end of the Second World War, the former Western powers lost an immense well of wealth and prestige that they never really recovered. For almost 60 years a relative peace reigned in the South China Sea region, while the former colonial empires were busy trying to rebuild themselves.

However, for the last 20 years, the World has seen a re-emergence of imperialist forces, of a desire to subjugate other states by any means necessary, reminiscent of the gunboat diplomacy of the 1800s.

Since the beginning of the Hong Kong Crisis in February 2019, it has become clear that foreign forces were guiding the actions of a few in a standoff against a legitimate elected government – but to what end?

While the United Kingdom likes to brandish the 1984 Sino-British Declaration, which led to the 1997 handover of Hong Kong back to Mainland China, they fail to acknowledge that Hong Kong was never theirs to take in the first place, and that had it not been for the imposed Treaty of Nanking in 1842, Hong Kong would never have been a territory of
China cut from its roots. Would the United Kingdom tolerate unequal terms regarding Northern Ireland imposed to them by a treaty? Did the United States accept the conquest of its territories in the Pacific by Japan some 75 years ago?

Then why should a sovereign state like China endure conditions that are invalid and expired, and that go against the principle of self-determination guaranteed by International Law?

Because, in the end, this is what it’s all about. The Fugitive Offenders amendment bill is a law passed by the Hong Kong government; a Hong Kong law for the Hong Kong people was deemed by the West to not respect their standards, and established by a colonial treaty that is recognized as having been imposed upon the people of China.

Thankfully, China has been able to stand against that sort of bullying, which has become more prevalent.

Other countries, such as Russia, have also voiced their concern at the hidden western agenda, supporting the fact that The Hong Kong Crisis can be directly linked to the illegitimate intervention of the United States and its allies through their intelligence agencies. There is no doubt that Western secret services have “directly participated in and organized unrest” in Hong Kong according to August 2019 declarations by Maria Zakharova, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson. This strong stance against foreign interference in the domestic affairs of Hong Kong and China is not the first time Russia comes out against U.S. meddling in internal issues, noting, for example, the strong objection by the Russian Government regarding the involvement of American entities in the promotion of protests in Russia.

This comes at a time where third party documentaries have shown neutral versions of the events unfolding in Hong Kong, demonstrating that in some cases Hong Kong protests have hidden leaders, and that U.S. officials were openly colluding with the movement that has left Hong Kong paralyzed for over a year.

What should have been a reasonable security prerogative – to adopt legislation protecting the people of Hong Kong and of China – ended up being another attempt by Western powers to meddle in the affairs of another State, in order to sow discord, hoping to create a breakaway state aligned with the expansionist policies that have been characteristic of their Foreign Policies (i.e. The Project for a New American Century for the United States) since the fall of
the Soviet Union. The focus on a military approach, versus a diplomatic approach, in the Middle East has led to many attempts at military foreign interventions (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria) to secure strategic resources and to gain tactical positioning. One should not doubt that these policies will remain in that region, and must understand that the richness of the South China Sea region is once again in the crosshairs of the West.