The Tribune

As so often, the US media has been obsessed recently with domestic affairs to such an extent that, until this last weekend, foreign issues like the continuing serious civil unrest in Hong Kong have been receiving little coverage. Most recently, the Trump impeachment proceedings have been given wall-to-wall coverage - almost, it seems, to the exclusion of other matters. So it may be helpful now to draw attention to the deepening crisis in Hong Kong which appears to be sinking into what amounts to anarchy.

This former British colony has been rocked by demonstrations and riots for the last five months, but these have now significantly worsened. Part of its territory had been ceded to Britain in the wake of the opium wars but was unviable on its own, so the whole of Hong Kong, the majority of which was leased in 1898 for a period of 99 years, was handed back to China in 1997 and, in doing so, Britain negotiated a new status for the territory.

In writing in this column about the early stages of the unrest, which has developed into the most serious political violence since the handover, I explained that its new standing as a Special Administrative Region – ‘one country, two systems’ – provided for a special semi-autonomy which guaranteed for 50 years Hong Kong’s democratic freedoms and way of life, including freedom of assembly, free speech and elections and an independent judiciary, all of which underpinned the territory’s position as an international financial hub.

Two years ago, at celebrations to mark the 20th anniversary of the handover, President Xi Jinping confirmed support for a continuation of the policy of ‘one country, two systems’, but, at the same time, he warned against so-called separatist forces threatening China’s sovereignty since Hong Kong was part of mainland China. Many in the territory regarded this as reassuring but they were also concerned about its future and the erosion of its democratic freedoms - including, under the pro-Beijing Chief Executive Carrie Lam, gradual restriction of its responsibility for its own affairs and growing Chinese meddling in internal matters.

The issue which originally sparked the unrest and demonstrations was the ill-fated Extradition Bill which would have enabled the Hong Kong authorities to send criminals or suspects to stand trial in China. Under the strong pressure that followed, this proposed legislation was subsequently withdrawn. But the demonstrations have intensified nonetheless and have become more violent, with protesters still angry about meddling by Beijing - in contravention, as they see it, of the guaranteed freedoms going back to 1997 - and who are now demanding full democracy and an independent investigation into alleged police brutality in confronting the protesters.

The demonstrations have now spread so much that office workers are marching on the streets during the working week, with protesters stockpiling weapons and using arrows and petrol bombs in potentially deadly attacks. Roads and tunnels have been blocked with barricades and the Polytechnic University was occupied by protesters at the weekend, leading to heavy clashes with the police who reacted with increasingly aggressive use of teargas and water cannon.

There seems to be no sign of any of this abating and there are new fears that use of troops of the Peoples Liberation Army, which has now bolstered the size of its garrison in Hong Kong, to help clean up the streets and remove barricades may enrage the protesters even more. Such involvement of the PLA in local affairs is a new development and it comes as President Xi has denounced the violent unrest, which Beijing blames on ‘foreign influences’, and has warned that it must end. Thus, the situation seems now to have reached breaking point.

This prolonged chaos has pushed Hong Kong’s hitherto vibrant economy into recession and some banks are threatening to review their investment plans. The major concern now is whether Beijing may intervene - and those with memories of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989 fear any repetition of something similar. It is not in the interests of Beijing for Hong Kong’s service-orientated economy, which is an important part of China’s own economy, to fail. Moreover, the international repercussions of any repressive intervention affecting a territory of seven million people would be wide ranging.

Yesterday, the Chinese ambassador in London spoke out about the escalating violence and resulting chaos and warned of an ‘unimaginable and dreadful’ future if this continued. His words are already being interpreted as an ominous threat of Chinese intervention. Any use of force would present the US with a major policy headache, not least because it is in the middle of a trade war with China. Similarly, Britain, which is committed under the Joint Declaration to protect Hong Kong’s freedoms, would be faced with a difficult dilemma.

Renowned former US Secretary of State and architect of President Nixon’s ground breaking visit to China in 1972, Dr Henry Kissinger, has recently warned that fundamental differences between the US and China, including the trade war, could result in catastrophe if not managed properly. As China grows into an economic powerhouse and seeks to play a global role, it has already become a long-term strategic competitor of the US, but that should not be allowed to turn into a permanent conflict since it is in the interests of both nations to learn to live together without one dominating the other.

Many people will surely now hope that the ugly situation in Hong Kong can be resolved and order restored so that any serious intervention by China involving force can be avoided.

What’s in a name and will it give Boris an edge?

In his celebrated book entitled How to Win Friends and Influence People, first published as long ago as 1953, American author Dale Carnegie stressed the importance of names. He maintained someone’s name is, to him or her, the “sweetest and most important sound in the English language”. If that is the case - and presumably he considered the same applied to those speaking other languages as well - how much more sweet and nurturing of self-esteem must it be if someone is immediately recognised and widely known by just one of his or her names or even by initials alone.

Think, for example, of American presidents Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Kennedy, known, respectively, as FDR, Ike and JFK. Or what about Winston Churchill? On his reappointment as First Lord of the Admiralty at the outbreak of war in 1939, before becoming Britain’s famous wartime leader, a signal was sent to all Royal Navy ships which simply read ‘Winnie’s back’, and everybody understood immediately. Then there is Elvis, who needs no explanation, and, if you uttered the word Fidel, it was clear to all that you were referring to the late Cuban leader; not to mention Hitler, to the extent that nowadays in Germany Adolf is still used as a traditional man’s name, though a Google search reveals that some register offices are said to “discourage” it – and, in sport, simple reference to “The Don” tells all who know and love cricket that you are talking about Donald Bradman as the most prolific Australian batsman of all time.

You can tell where this is leading, folks, when I ask how significant it is that Britain’s new Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, pictured right, probably enjoys the best name recognition of anyone across the country. Only in office since late July, he is instantly identifiable by his Christian name. I would hazard a guess that, if you mention the word “Boris” in any pub or at any gathering up and down the land, people will know at once to whom you are referring.

Indeed, during his campaigning in the run-up to the UK general election on December 12 this will be to his advantage. Given his affable and genial manner and forthcoming, down-to-earth approach, the average person seems to warm to him compared with the more detached and so-called robotic approach of his predecessor who somehow failed to connect with voters. The press is already reporting that on the campaign trail most are emboldened to address him as Boris.

England still has a highly class-conscious culture that can breed envy and resentment. Since Boris Johnson comes from what is perceived as a privileged background as a product of Eton and Oxford, some people are determined to regard him as elitist and out of touch with the concerns and needs of the man in the street. But he manages to overcome any such perception by having a good touch with people, and he has the knack of encouraging them to be patriotic about their country and to feel good about themselves - as someone said, he tells it as it is. So, his background seems not to have become an issue.

With less than a month to polling day, I hope to look soon at the state of the parties, especially the main opposition Labour and the Liberal Democrats, in what is seen as the most important election for Britain since the Second World War. At present, the sitting Prime Minister is surging in the polls. Though this could change, his great attribute is being instantly recognised simply as Boris.

US teaching the British a lesson in democracy

I am indebted to a friend for sending me an article published recently in the US edition of The Spectator’s UK magazine in which the author, Lionel Shriver, maintains the election of a so-called incompetent and unqualified US president and Brexit have little in common despite the widespread perception that that they are identical twin expressions of modern-day populism.

Against most predictions, the American electorate voted for Mr Trump in 2016. This was within the established political process. One can, therefore, oppose him safe in the knowledge it was democracy at work. By contrast, the British electorate’s preference for leaving, in the author’s words, a power-hungry erstwhile trading bloc has been thwarted by a parliament which has refused to obey the voters - and this was an example of democracy not working. If one favours democracy, one should support Brexit.

Thus, he argues, even though both may be seen as the result of populism, it shows Britain’s political system is broken whereas America’s is not. He goes on to say the whole purpose of democracy is to manage situations in which everyone believes they are right and everyone disagrees. In the US, the will of the people prevailed in 2016. But, so far, in Britain it has not because the outcome of the Brexit referendum that year has still not been implemented. Perhaps the coming election will finally fix that - one way or the other.