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.
d 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.
d 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?
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)