While I was Governor of Hong Kong, from 1992 until the handover of the city to China in 1997, I kept a diary. Consulting that diary over the last few months, as I write a book partly about my experience there, I have discovered several passages describing China’s “struggle” school of diplomacy – one that endures even today, as we approach the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to Chinese sovereignty.
In China’s struggle school of diplomacy, no decision could be confirmed without a protracted argument with the Communist Party of China (CPC) officials. That argument ended only when it became clear that the Chinese could squeeze no other concessions out of those on the other side of the table. Time, Chinese negotiators seemed (or pretended) to believe, was on their side, so they could always wait out their opponents.
It was often difficult to see the point of the whole miserable exercise. Why, for example, push up the price of a new airport for Hong Kong by delaying its construction?
I suppose the Chinese authorities preferred that the project be completed when China, not the United Kingdom, was responsible for the city.
Another example of this bullying approach concerned the arrangements for the handover itself. China made a number of proposals that, had we not resisted them, would have allowed its army to sweep into Hong Kong well before June 30, 1997, the agreed handover date.
The Chinese also pushed hard to make the handover ceremony itself a humiliation for Britain. They wanted the Prince of Wales, the principal British representative at the ceremony, to pay court to China’s president (though they did not demand that he bow before handing over the keys to the city).
Here, too, we held firm, eventually agreeing that China’s president and the Prince of Wales would enter a room at the same time. The president made a short formal speech, to which the prince and British Prime Minister Tony Blair offered impromptu responses.
As China becomes an increasingly important player in global affairs, the rest of the world would do well
to recognize the possibility
of unreliability, or even deception, by its leaders
With a flurry of handshakes, everyone departed and that was that. It was not the kind of ceremony that should have taken such pains to plan, particularly given that the Chinese had nothing substantial to say; yet, as was so often the case, it was the product of a struggle.
Chinese negotiators’ obstreperousness might be somewhat palatable if the agreements that resulted were ironclad. But contrary to the perceptions of many – including those to whom I have spoken about China’s struggle diplomacy – evidence suggests that Chinese authorities do not necessarily keep their word.
Consider China’s accession to the World Trade Organization. During the negotiations, in which I was involved, China promised to open its market to the rest of the world. But it has done so only slowly – far more slowly than other countries opened their doors to Chinese exports and investment. More broadly, the CPC connived to create a sloping playing field – just ask any foreign chamber of commerce in Beijing.
It probably seems hypocritical for a Western politician to criticize emerging powers for untrustworthiness, at a time when the president of the United States – once the leader of the West – is the shockingly undependable Donald Trump.
With moves like withdrawing the US from the Paris climate agreement, Trump has shown that he can be trusted no further than he can be thrown.
But that will change, when Trump, sooner or later, is swept into the ashbin of history. The same cannot be said for the Politburo Standing Committee – the CPC’s top leadership body – which outlasts any one leader.
As China becomes an increasingly important player in global affairs, the rest of the world would do well to recognize the possibility of unreliability, or even deception, by its leaders.
An important test of China’s reliability will play out in the next few years in Hong Kong. The shift in sovereignty from Britain to China was based on the “joint declaration” between the two countries concluded in the mid-1980s.
This document, an international treaty lodged with the United Nations, guaranteed that Hong Kong’s autonomy and way of life would be safeguarded for 50 years, or until 2047.
So far, things are not going quite as planned. Despite having largely respected the agreement during the first few years after the handover – though it rather quickly started dismantling the arrangements for ensuring democratic accountability – China’s grip on Hong Kong has tightened considerably.
Indeed, far from implementing democratic reforms, China has threatened the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, and the autonomy of Hong Kong’s universities.
It has also made not-so-subtle attempts to curtail freedom of the press. Hong Kong residents have been abducted and taken across the border to face the “rule of law” on the CPC’s terms.
The CPC seems to think that after 20 years, the outside world won’t care what happens in the former British colony. The people of Hong Kong, meanwhile, increasingly have to wonder whether China will respect their city’s rights – or squeeze its windpipe.
To be sure, Hong Kong remains one of the freest cities in Asia, not least because of the pride its residents take in their status as Hong Kong Chinese. They are patriots, who believe not in Communist authoritarianism, but in pluralism and the close connection between personal freedom and prosperity.
President Xi Jinping would do well to take the opportunity offered by the handover’s 20-year anniversary to reaffirm China’s commitment to the joint declaration – and then to follow through on that affirmation.
As for the rest of the world, we should watch closely what happens in Hong Kong. If China’s leaders break their word in Hong Kong, how can we trust them in other areas?
This guy is unbelievably naive. After the past humiliation of China by guess who? Maybe just a hint – the Opium wars and the pillage of the Sumner Palace and the unilateral drawing up of the MacMahon Line!
This guy expects us to trust and respect the assailant and rapist of our national pride and dignity. He should have been appreciative that we signed the 1996 Handover Treaty to allow the British ‘face’ and a bit of honour and respect for public global consumption. That is called ‘inscrutability’. We could have just as easily just ‘marched in’ like the Indians did in Goa or Sikkim! Does he really know International Law?
And this guy is absolutely ‘dumb’ for a person who professes to be highly educated. How on Earth is Western Democracy going to be workable in a 5000+ living antiquity that is China. Is HK not a part of China?
How do you genetically change a Chinese to a Whiteman? Is that what the Western hegemonistic supremacist ideology is all about – making the non-whites ‘bananas’ or ‘coconuts’ or ‘penguins’ to suit the Western taste and diet!
China is still and will remain an absolute imperialistic dynastic regime subject to the ‘mandate of heaven’. Except that now the new ’emperor’ is an abstract institution called the Communist Party. But even then it is only a covenient label or attire. It is simply in practice more capitalist than communist. As Deng Hsiao Peng said – who cares if the cat is black or white as long as it catches the mice!
The Chinese people takes their ‘Emperor’ as they find him or it. All the populace expects and requires is that the ‘Emperor’ ensures that the people have gainful work or business or trade, shelter, food, clothing, health and education, law and order and public security and that the Middle Kingdom remains intact. The basic unit of the Chinese society is the family unit and not the individual. Were it to be the latter, everyday would be mayhem in China, if every single individual speaks and acts their mind. The family being the basic unit and the core value being ‘filial piety’ removes the Western egocentricity, egoisticism and self-centredness that plagues Western society.
The whole world in their right mind would have to protect the Chinese antiquity like an international heritage! It is the only surviving continuous nation of people, civilisation and culture called by its descendants or inheritors from time immemorial the Middle Kingdom. Ancient Egypt is now Arabic and Muslim, Ancient Greece and Rome are now Christians. Ancient Assyria and Persia are also Muslim and speak different languages. The Chinese still write and speak the same and still worship their parents and ancestors, and thus is still atheist and pagan! And yes, we will continue to eat with chopsticks, do kungfu fighting and taichi, and believe in the Qi and the ying and yang and fungshui
Yes, the ancient Dragon had and has to adapt to changing times but like any evolutionary process it can only accept foreign things that will not trigger an immunity reaction – or else things might turn cancerous or catastrophic! Like a vaccination, new ideas or measures introduced cannot be adopted carte blanche but modified with Chinese characteristics.
Surely, such a distinguished person like Chris Patten cannot be so dumb in his geopolitical analysis. Or, is he still a British Colonial saboteur provocateur and subversive like the Sassoons and Cecil Rhodes, hoping to trigger another Opium War?
Why worry about this idiotic and thieving brit Chris anyway? He got the cheek to confront all the Chinese who do him no wrong while he and his british cohort killed, stole, raped and plundered China. This unrepentant idiot should be heaped with shame and disgust for the way he carries himself by all Chinese.
chris patten – you make me puke … what a disgraceful and shameless calumny voiced by a die-hard colonialist …
the big question now is after 20 years, can the world trust us, the uk, to stop meddling in other ppls affair ???
for anyone who possesses a shred of knowledge about the history of hk, especially the rather ignorant young hkers, the uk and you, chris patten, leaving hk 20 years should be a celebrated event. it was a chance for us as a country to put behind us a part of our great history thats indefensible, shameful and despicable …
for 150 years hk was our occupied outpost forcibly taken away from china, a gateway to poison china with opiums that we banned throughout the realm of the british empire including india, the opium grower … but unconscionably we chose to impose it on the chinese ppl, in the name of the right to trade and purpose of making profit …
and you dare to claim moral high ground and have you got no shame ???
China started tightening the screws on Hong Kong when the West started instigating the youths for independence. Britain set a 50 year trap for China and the Chinese leadership saw through it.
I watched him being interviewed on CNBC Asia last night, the first thought that came to me was this man is total SCUM. In the interview which was a total softball he kept saying ———in the years a head we will see first hand if the Chinese can be trusted. Dude——–its you who can’t be trusted and the British leadership gave the SCUM a promotion——–he is now Lord Chris Patten———what a joke. As for CNBC Asia————FAKE NEWS and Bernie Le is a total schmuck!!!
The British are renowned thieves and robbers as shown in past centuries. This idiot is just one of them in sheep’s clothing and cannot be trusted.
The question is, can the west be trusted in the first place !
He is an opium seller
He is british…
Chris thinks that the leaders of China will not Change their style No matter who is on the position. But history has shown that it’s not the case. Every leader, from Mao, Deng, Jiang, Hu, to Xi, and to any future figure, has his style of thinking and doing things, thus is different.
Same as He wish the Next US President will be quite different from Donald Trump.
Chris Patten was the last representative of the opium seller country, a despicable figure that should be tried and executed as a criminal.
I steal something from you, and you better negotiate the way I like to get it back, or I will tell everyone you are not to be trusted.
News flash: China occupies the south of England. Whether England negotiates the handover the way China likes will become the litmus test of whether England can be trusted.
He can only fool some Hong Kong people, not those back home in England. Tell us what is your achievement in life so far. A successful HK governor? That all?
"China’s Hong Kong at 20 – a litmus test on whether the world can trust Beijing"
So said the man that governed Hong Kong as a despot and, in his last days, proclaimed its independence in order to void the lease contract with China.
What a load of sanctimonious horse shit !
This turd still think he can talk like he cares about HK.
Chris Patten oversaw an attempt to siphon off Hong Kong treasury funds with the Kai Tak airport project just before the handover. He is completely unscruplous, dishonest and not to be trusted at all.