Lessons from the Hong Kong protests
THE Chan Tong-Kai case was in many ways more than just about a murder – it was also a diplomatic rattle.
Since 1997, the world has waited for the “one country, two systems” plan to be given the opportunity to work. Pessimists have waited for this opportunity to say, “I told you so”.
This system currently indicates that Hong Kong can govern itself with as much freedom as if independent, and if this continues, we might have found a recipe to ensure conflict resolution in disputed territories around the world.
The challenge is that in most disputed territories, the conflict is multifaceted and includes talk of borders, types of government, refugees and levels of independence. It has thus become evident that for any plan to be successful, there’s a requirement for there to be a presence of the watchful eye of a strong global body, for mutual respect between the two governments in the two territories; and lastly, it helps for there to be a genuine want to build, develop and maintain a partnership of success.
Hong Kong would gain from a shared growing economy and other benefits if it was able to exist with clearly defined borders, its own internal social culture, and the right to govern the way the people of Hong Kong choose to elect their government.
The Chan Tong-Kai case showed the vulnerability that exists when UN resolutions are relied on as the gospel, and when we apply blind faith in that they’ll be implemented and maintained as agreed on, decades on.
The UN has the mandate and responsibility to monitor and ensure compliance to its resolutions. But it would seem the louder the Hong Kong protests get, the more silent the UN has become. The more the people of Hong Kong fought for their rights, the less certain it seemed that anyone would be able to stop China.
In an area where boundary encroachment is an increasing concern, further resulting in the blatant attempt on the independence of the judiciary and governance, the last thing we as political parties in any country can afford to do is allow silence in the bodies meant to watchdog the global community.
The DA respects the fact that it cannot interfere in the running of other countries. However, we have lent voice to global protests where human rights or the breach of resolutions have taken place. Domestically our position is to lobby government through the minister and Dirco (the Department of International Relations and Cooperation) to ensure we use the memberships SA is subscribed to, to voice our protests and objections to events.
SA has a responsibility to its residents through the spending of fiscal money on membership to these bodies, and must therefore express the sentiment and wishes of the majority of her citizens and use her relationship with these countries to express opinion or concern when issues arise.
The DA believes if the “1 Country 2 System” policy begins to bear fruit in stability, peace, growth, the respect of boundaries and right to self-govern, this could point the way to more fruitful mediations around global territorial disputes. For this project to work, the UN, G8, et al need to ensure they’re effective in enforcing these resolutions and interfering where a breach occurs.
The Chan Tong-Kai case has shown there’s cause for concern and the pessimists have a right to be slowly nodding their heads. Vulnerability exists and the voice of the people is physically suppressed. This is not the way to express confidence in the process.
South Africa is a strong ally of China and at the chair of the UN security council. They have an opportunity to assist, and to inspire other regions with this system. Will they show SA citizens return on membership fees, or will they continue to turn a blind eye to the protests and concerns?