Hong Kong and the Chinese ‘Empire’

The marking of anniversaries in global politics is usually confined to the creation of new states through the cessation of provinces or regions, by generally violent means as has been experienced at varying times in history. The unification of Germany is a critical exception that stands out. Yet 2017 marks a unique anniversary of the unification of a country that is fast emerging as the greatest powerhouse the world has ever known.

When Chris Patten sailed out of Hong Kong’s Victoria Harbour on board HMS Britannia in June 1997, it was not merely a handover of governance from the United Kingdom to China, but more importantly the curtain falling on one empire and gradually rising on another. The presence of the British in southern China since the founding of the Hong Kong Crown Colony on 26 January 1841 had been a long and arduous task, as was the experience between all colonizers and their respective colonies.

Occupied in the midst of the First Opium War which lasted from 1839 to 1842, Hong Kong was ceded to Britain in the Treaty of Nanking, the signing of which saw the ending of the War as the Chinese were defeated. Yet it was the 1898 Second Convention of Peking that saw the establishment of a 99 year rent-free period, giving the British what seemed to be an indefinite stay in the territory. With the opening of discussions between the British and Chinese in 1982 when Deng Xiaoping stressed the need for the handover to Margaret Thatcher, the result was the signing of the Joint Declaration in 1984, and the stage was set for the dismantling of control over yet another jewel in the crown. 

Today the statue of Deng Xiaoping positioned as it is in Shenzhen ‘walking’ towards Hong Kong is more than symbolic. His tedious efforts of reclaiming Hong Kong from the British were seen through his steadfast position that Hong Kong would return to China, highlighted through his assertion that pursuant to a lapse of a year or two, China would announce her intention to recover the territory. Unlike in the Falklands, Thatcher didn’t have the opportunity to assert British sovereignty over Hong Kong and had to abide by the 1898 Convention.

The twentieth anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong is an opportune moment to reflect upon the vast changes taking places in China as a whole and the position the country has come to occupy on the global stage. Large countries, such as China, which Martin Jacques claims is ‘not just a nation-state, it is also a civilization-state’ given the gigantic nature of size, the magnitude of population and the propensity to effect change, have much at their disposal. He goes on to say that the term China encompasses ‘its history, the dynasties, Confucius, the ways of thinking, the role of government, relationships and customs, the Guanxi or network of personal connections, the family, the filial piety, ancestral worship, the values and distinctive philosophy, all of which long predate China’s history as a nation-state.’

Yet diplomacy is a key tool, and it is complimented with a variety of other embellishments. Such continent-like countries strategize on equivalent terms but they too realize that in the global community the need exists to cooperate with all. The China of today is well equipped and is using all its diplomatic capabilities to its advantage.

The current Chinese global policy direction through the amalgamated One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative and the AIIB brings several countries closer to China through trade, investment and economic cooperation. Lest we forget China is the largest holder of US treasury bonds. During the global financial crisis, China did not trim its bond holdings, but actually increased them, a move which ensured stability in the United States, mobile financial markets, eased its credit crunch and promoted trade financing, thus being beneficial to the country’s goal in macroeconomic regulations.

President Xi has been at pains to stress that ‘the pursuit of the Belt and Road Initiative is not meant to reinvent the wheel. Rather, it aims to complement the development strategies of countries involved by leveraging their comparative strengths.’ President of the China Institute of International Studies (CIIS) Ambassador Su Ge recently noted that China is ‘looking for a more inclusive world order with more respect for diversity, not a new world order.’ It is here that a clear thought-process becomes relevant. The comprehension of contemporary China calls for primarily understanding the contemporary world.

Chou Enlai succeeded in dispelling qualms and apprehensions that existed sixty years ago and thrust China into the global arena. Xi Jinping has marked the milestone with far reaching vision and cemented the position of China as a key leader, in world affairs. His initiatives in resurrecting the ancient Silk Road and thereby creating an ‘economic belt’ has widely enhanced the influence of China not only across the Asian region but beyond into Africa, the Middle East and Europe as investments are targeted in the areas of road, rail, port and pipelines across scores of countries.

Furthering interest and engagement in the region, China’s assumption of the chairmanship of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA), saw a reiteration of the Chinese policy of integrating to a greater degree. President Xi stressed that ‘with our interests and security so closely intertwined, we will swim or sink together and we are increasingly becoming a community of common destiny.’ The close affinity being nurtured through investment and commerce has benefited countries throughout the region and is expected to bear more fruit as the growth of the relationship expands.

While the British saw the sun set on their empire when they left Hong Kong, the Chinese sun is on the ascent and so is their ‘empire.’ With a growing global presence, which is physical, economical, financial and political, the building of an empire, is evident.

-          Awarelogue Editorial

THE FUTILITY OF ISOLATING QATAR, THE WORLD’S RICHEST NATION

Qataris awoke on Monday, 05^th June 2017 to a rapid movement of events in which certain Arab states severed diplomatic ties with them and issued consecutive decrees. Seen as a spilling over of simmering discontent with an Arab ally, the action taken by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, which was followed by others including the Maldives, which has become a key backer of Saudi Arabia, has been aimed at isolating Qatar over allegations of linkages to terrorism. Yet Qatar as a state is not alien to intervention. Ever since the intrusion of Britain in the Bahraini-Qatari War in 1867 and the installation of the Al-Thani family as the rulers of Qatar, the relatively small state has experienced outside intervention and attempts to coerce the country into bidding dictates from elsewhere. 

From its annexation to the Ottoman Empire in 1871, to it becoming a British protectorate in the midst of the First World War in 1916 as the Ottoman Empire collapsed, Qatar has also seen internal royal squabbles. Whilst Sheikh Khalifa bin Hamad Al Thani staged a palace coup in which he seized power from his cousin a year after Qatar received its independence from Britain in 1971, he took part in the first Gulf War in support of America and the attempt to liberate Kuwait from the Iraqi invasion of the time. Seen as pro-Saudi, Sheikh Kahlifa was to lose power to his son, Crown Prince Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani in 1995.

That year was critical for Qatar’s relations with Saudi Arabia. Making its first shipment of liquid natural gas from the offshore North Field, which is shared with Iran, saw the transformation of Qatar. Although animosity with Iran saw the Saudis take umbrage at Qatar’s action, the country prospered, becoming the richest nation in the world according to per capita income. Since oil was discovered in 1939, the country which had relied on pearls and fishing, now suddenly faced immense wealth, which it was prudent to use effectively. 

After Crown Prince Hamad bin Khalifa become ruler he sought to establish low-level ties with Israel, which were abandoned subsequently, and launched the Al-Jazeera satellite news network which even aired footage of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden sparking American criticism, whilst its Arab Spring coverage earned the wrath of Arab leaders. In 2012 he was the first Arab leader to support military intervention in Syria, sparking further outrage among Arab neighbours. Two years later Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain recalled their ambassadors from Doha following a political rift over Qatar’s tacit support for the Muslim Brotherhood, but returned the envoys eight months later following Kuwaiti mediation pursuant to which Qatar forced members of the Brotherhood out of the country.

The current action seen as a ‘counter revolution’ for Qatar’s role in the recent past, might be justified by some quarters of the Arab world as necessary to tame or chastise an Arab neighbour, but what seems to allude such perceptions is the potential, power and pragmatism with which Qatar has functioned thus far. From a backward port city to its emergence on the global stage as the richest nation, Qatar has earned many allies in the right places. Capable of mingling with the rich and powerful, through heavy investments, Qatar has developed strong bonds of friendship with less forceful nations through the provision of employment for their nationals and further investment. The network built up over the last several decades is today its strongest asset, and perhaps an area some in the Arab world failed to assess.

Whilst providing America with a military base in Al-Udeid at a cost of US$ 1 billion, Qatar invested significantly in real estate in Washington and New York. Qatar injected US $ 2.7 billion into Russia’s state-run Rosneft Oil company. France is the second largest recipient of Qatari investments, which amounted to more than US$ 22 billion in 2016, and Germany has seen Qatar generously support Deutsche Bank and Volkswagen. In Britain, Qatar recently pledged £5 billion in investments over the next three to five years. China has looked to Qatar as a partner in the OBOR project, receives 20% of their LNG from Qatar and are building the 2022 FIFA World Cup stadium. Turkey has signed a military agreement with Qatar, while Canada was to be the next stop for Qatari finances as the head of the Qatar Investment Agency met with Prime Minister Trudeau just last month.

Allies exist across the divide. Despite having a population of just 313, 000 people, Qatar is home to nearly 2.3 million, the majority of which are from India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Philippines, Egypt, Sri Lanka, Syria, Sudan, Indonesia and the list tapers on.  The provision of a livelihood, in addition to investments in these countries has seen the earning of allies, who assist at times of need. Indian External Affairs Minister pointed out that the crisis precipitating in the Arab world was an internal matter of the Gulf countries. Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, among others have refrained from taking sides given the need to cooperate with both Saudi Arabia and Qatar, although the Philippines immediately halted the deployment of its citizens in Qatar.

Qatar exerts immense power, which it refuses to wield in a vulgar manner, choosing instead to tread a path of cooperation with countries across the world. With a sovereign wealth fund worth an estimated US$335 billion, Qataris have thought of the future.  Having planted ‘food farms’ through the acquisition of large swathes of villages overseas, the desert country, has today addressed food security concerns through projects in Sudan and Australia. This economic diversification and agricultural enhancement has pushed Qatar towards greater self-sufficiency.

Thus isolating Qatar would prove futile.

Given the global position, economic capability and financial scope of Qatar, the Foreign Minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani drove the message home, noting that Qatar had ‘been isolated because we are successful and progressive.’ The accusations of terrorism and links to terror networks ring hollow in light of the reality. After all people in glass houses don’t usually throw stones, although they have on this occasion. 

- Awarelogue Editorial

TRUMP, TEMPERATURE AND TIME

The attacks in London, explosions in Kabul, terror attacks in Manila, incidents in Melbourne and diplomatic turmoil in the Arab world, all increased the threats of the times, as manmade tragedies abound and levels of fear remain high. Yet amid the obvious destruction being wrought, the globe continues to slide into further peril as temperatures rise and climate change is probably our silent enemy.

Forty five years ago, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment deemed it necessary and timely to integrate human interactions and the environment. The landmark decision in 1972 saw the commemoration of the first World Environment Day in 1974. Action over the decades has included commitments on the part of states, which haven’t always been realized owing to the nature of that which has been pledged. The reductions beings sought are from the industry, which states have to convince and entice into respecting. Irrespective of the nature of the arrangement, the undertaking has been considerable.

On the eve of the 2017 commemoration, the American President opted to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which had taken tremendous effort and courage to finalize, and which came into operation in November 2016. Seen as new course in the global climate effort, the Agreement saw states trying to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by maintaining a global temperature rise well below two degrees in the 21^st century.

Prerequisites set by the United States for ratifying such international treaties are many. Back in the nineties at the height of negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, the US Congress passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution which made it compulsory for developing countries to first actively participate in the setting of global emission targets, if America was to be a signatory. The effort in 2015 was equally challenging, though then President Obama claimed it was due to ‘strong, principled American leadership’ that the accord was finalized. One and a half years later, that American President isn’t in office, neither is his French counterpart, Francois Hollande, or the Chairman of the Conference, former Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, nor even the then UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. The leadership has changed, yet the commitment is expected to remain resolute.

Trump’s decision to withdraw unless the Agreement is re-negotiated or a new one is evolved, indicates the supremacy with which he views the world, the lack of understanding of the environment and more importantly the inability to comprehend the destruction that America has wrought on the planet. Speaking in the Rose Garden, he stressed that ‘exiting the agreement protects the United States from future intrusions on the United States’ sovereignty and massive future legal liability.’ He also revealed that with the opening of new coal mines in ‘Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia (and) so many places’ American workers, whom he loves very much, given the consecutive expression of endearment, would benefit. The risk posed to humanity as a whole, appears irrelevant.

The creation of the United States Climate Alliance has seen the Governors of California, New York and Washington pledging their support to the Paris Agreement. Inviting other states to follow suit, the Alliance being established has the support of three key states that jointly contribute one-fifth of the American GDP and at least ten per cent of American greenhouse gas emissions. In calling for states and cities to join the effort, the move could be one towards the rise of such entities, reversing the international order, as city-states return to the forefront, as was seen with London in the Brexit vote.

Efforts have been made in the last several decades to curb environmental harm, degradation and destruction. From the 1962 Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, to the Ramsar Convention of 1971, the MARPOL Convention and CITES in 1973, the Montreal Protocol of 1987, the Basel Convention of 1989, the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio as well as the Kyoto Protocol, have all aimed at preserving the planet, from diverse threats created by humanity.       

Climate change remains as real as it ever has been. Trump need not look too far to see climate change in action. When the 27^th American President, William Howard Taft created the Glacier National Park in 1910, it encompassed 150 glaciers, which have been reduced to a mere 30 a hundred years later, as the area has shrunk by two-thirds. As environmentalist Daniel Glick warns, ‘from the Arctic to Peru, from Switzerland to the equatorial glaciers of Man Jaya in Indonesia, massive ice fields, monstrous glaciers, and sea ice are disappearing, fast.’

Yet the world has been reminded of the importance of American coal workers, and the preservation of their jobs, casting aside concern that those very same workers’ future generations might not be around to carry on the work envisaged for them. Until and unless greater concern is demonstrated for the wellbeing of the other, nature will ensure that the threat of rising temperatures remains our foremost enemy. Unfortunately time for action, maybe fast running out.

• Awarelogue Editorial