Is American Dependency Actually “Self-Determination” for Hong Kong?
By Chu Lap-tung
Originally published in The International (国际)
Translated by Sean Haoqin Kang, member of Qiao Collective
Editor’s note: On July 1, 2020, the People’s Republic of China instated a National Security Law for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, designed to address instability, violence, and foreign interference after more than a year of pro-independence protests sparked by a 2019 proposed extradition bill. The United Kingdom and United States have declared the law an abrogation of the “One Country, Two Systems” compromise negotiated during the retrocession of British colonial Hong Kong to the PRC in 1997. The two nations’ outcry is indicative of the deep ongoing psychological, commercial, and strategic investments the imperialist powers retain in the “crown jewel” of their colonial China project: The UK is offering an expedited pathway to citizenship for 3 million eligible Hong Kong residents; US Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer bemoaned that Trump had “lost Hong Kong”; the White House froze $2 million in payments earmarked to support Hong Kong “pro-democracy” efforts; and the US State Department announced it would cease exports of “controlled defense” technologies to Hong Kong.
In this context, Qiao Collective is pleased to translate English translation an important essay from The International, a Hong Kong-based Marxist group. Published in August 2019, author Chu Lap-tung questions the pro-democracy (Pan-Dem) camp’s romanticization of political dependency under the imperialist West. Taking up Puerto Rico as a tragic case study of US imperial parasitism, Chu fundamentally challenges the Pan-Dem presumption that “Western imperialism’s colonial governments [are] not only ‘more free’ but also ‘more democratic.’ ”
One of the most familiar images from the Anti-Extradition Movement is the throngs of people proudly waving the Stars and Stripes, calling on Trump to “Liberate Hong Kong.” In the beginning of May 2019, before the full onset of the movement, Martin Lee (first chairperson of the Democratic Party), Lee Cheuk-yan (first chairperson of the Labour Party), Nathan Law (Chairperson of Demosistō), and Mak Yin-ting (former chairperson of the Hong Kong Journalist Association), along with other Pan-Dem leaders, visited Washington, D.C. as a delegation to meet Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, among other Washington bigwigs. There, they called on the United States to oppose the proposed amendment of the Extradition Bill put forth by the Hong Kong government, threatened the review of the Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, which grants Hong Kong separate treatment from Mainland China, and pushed the Hong Kong Democracy and Human Rights Act. At the beginning of July 2019, Jimmy Lai arrived in the United States for a visit, and proceeded to successively meet with Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary Pompeo, National Security Adviser Bolton, and other dignitaries, expressing that the Hong Kong people “oppose extradition” and stand “ready to fight for the United States”. On August 16th, 12 student unions of local institutions of higher learning hosted a “UK, US, and HK in alliance shall bring sovereignty to the people” rally, urging the United Kingdom to declare that China was in violation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, and calling for the legislatures of the United Kingdom and the United States to sanction Chinese and Hong Kong officials who intrude on Hong Kong’s autonomy. A collaborator with these student unions, a LIHKG [a Hong Kong social media platform likened to Reddit/4Chan] user named “Ngo Yiu Lam Chau” [translatable as “I want mutual destruction”] pointed out while posting on LIHKG that once the UK confirms that China was in violation of the Joint Declaration, the UK would have the legal right to forcibly take back Hong Kong. At this “UK-US-HK alliance” rally reappeared teams of people waving high the flags of British Hong Kong and the Stars and Stripes, as well as those yelling the slogan: “Welcome US Army.”
The main reasoning of the “Anti-Extradition movement” is that the proposed Extradition Bill Amendment as put forth by the Hong Kong government will lead to Mainland judiciary control over Hong Kong and thereby erode Hong Kong’s autonomy. To avoid this situation, the proponents of the movement called on the legislatures of the UK and the US to preside over the internal turmoil of Hong Kong and punish the movement’s enemies. Despite the fact that Hong Kong has no right to partake in the decision-making of either the UK or the US, the movement’s proponents still call on these nations to take Hong Kong into their own judiciary purview. The fact that the entire spectrum of “yellow politics” are united on this position tells us the common goal behind movement slogans such as “the leaderless movement,” (沒有大台) “everybody pulls their own weight,” (各自努力) and “don’t condemn anybody, don’t cut ties, don’t rat anyone out” (不譴責，不割席，不篤灰) [In Hong Kong, yellow politics refers mostly to the dissident, pro-democracy spectrum: Pan-dems, Self-determination, Nativism, Independence, etc. Blue politics refers broadly to pro-establishment factions]. It is simply the pursuit of “autonomy” and “self-rule” while under the tutelage of the legal system—and even military force—of the United Kingdom and the United States. One can say this is another sort of “One Country, Two Systems”—although the “One Country” changes from the People’s Republic of China to the “International Community” led by the United States. In other words, the Pan-Dem movement’s definition of “autonomy” is akin to that of the colonies and concessions established throughout China by imperial powers after the Opium Wars. The banners of “United Kingdom can forcibly take back Hong Kong” and “Welcome US Army” are not just empty, aimless banter, but rather a targeted measure with the goal of regaining once again this so-called “autonomy.”
In other words, the Pan-Dem movement’s definition of “autonomy” is akin to that of the colonies and concessions established throughout China by imperial powers after the Opium Wars.
On January 2nd, 2019, in commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the 1979 issuance of the “Letter to Compatriots in Taiwan,” General Secretary Xi Jinping proposed a joint inquiry into a “Plan for a One Country, Two Systems with Taiwan.” Taiwan’s government and its opposition alike almost unanimously opposed the idea. Notable political scientist Fan Shiping, who in January of 2018 wrote an article “Taiwan is a Part of the United States,” published an article in April of this year arguing that should the Communist Party of China plan to “Hong Kong-ize” Taiwan, the United States will be compelled to “Puerto Rico-ize” Taiwan. Fan Shiping continues: “The United States uses more laws to strengthen US-Taiwan relations than it does to administer Puerto Rico… and in legal principle, the United States does not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country, just the same as it treats Puerto Rico, and thus Taiwan is in a similar sort of ‘internal relations’ with the United States.” Fan believes that if Taiwan had to make a choice between Hong Kong and Puerto Rico, Taiwan would choose the latter, because “Puerto Rico still has many characteristics of a sovereign country, American interference in Puerto Rico affairs is appropriately restricted, yet it protects the democratic freedoms and lifestyle of Puerto Rico.”
At the end of July 2019, parts of the Hong Kong “left” cheered the resignation of Puerto Rico’s governor due to civil unrest, contending that the process was democratic because the United States did not threaten military suppression like China did with Anti-Extradition, but rather calmly accepted the resignation of the governor and followed the will of the people. The majority of Hong Kong’s “leftists” believe that anti-imperialism is the manifestation of “backwards nationalism”; they consider Hong Kong’s colonial government as having adhered to the will of the people, that society after the Handover is not as democratic as it was before the Handover, and so on and so forth. In other words, the “leftists” are just like their parents in the mainstream, the “Pan-Dems”, believing as they do that in a comparison with the Communist Party of China, Western imperialism’s colonial governments were not only “more free” but also “more democratic.”
So what is the nature of Puerto Rico, that model the Hong Kong and Taiwan pro-imperialist camps uphold as the model of “democratic autonomy” under the tutelage of the United States? Puerto Rico is an American colony through and through.
Since the beginning of the Spanish Empire’s occupation in 1493, Puerto Rico has been a colony—lacking political or economic sovereignty. In order to secure shipping routes from its Eastern Seaboard to China via Central America and the supply bases necessary for such shipping, the United States in 1898 used the pretense of “liberating the people of the Spanish colonies” to begin its own occupation of Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam, and the Philippines.
In 1917, the United States Congress decided to pass the Jones-Shafroth Act to manage Puerto Rico: the Jones Act provided for the conscription of Puerto Rican people into the American military for service in World War I, but also granted American citizenship to Puerto Ricans and enfranchisement for Puerto Ricans who migrated to the American mainland. It also provided that Puerto Rico’s legislative body would be selected by a white male electorate, the governor would be directly dispatched from the United States, and that American merchants would hold monopoly shipping traffic rights between the United States and Puerto Rico. At the same time, it provided that yields from Puerto Rico government bonds would avoid federal, state, and local taxes on the mainland.
In July of 1952, the United States Congress approved the constitution of Puerto Rico and implemented general elections for Puerto Rico’s governor and legislature, leading to the formation of a severely overstaffed government and a political system marked by electoral cronyism in the assignment of political offices. In the meantime, the United States Congress granted mainland American companies operating in Puerto Rico preferential tax treatment when exporting back to the mainland United States.
In the period from 1994 to 2004, the United States successively signed free trade agreements with Mexico and other Caribbean countries where workers’ wages were lower than in the United States. From 1996 to 2006, the United States gradually cancelled the preferential tax treatment of American companies operating in Puerto Rico, leading to the unemployment of at least 80,000 people and causing many young able-bodied laborers to emigrate to the mainland United States, thereby decreasing the population of Puerto Rico and contracting its economy. From 2007 to 2017, Puerto Rico’s net national income fell by almost 15%.
Puerto Rico is not a state of the United States and has no representation in the United States Congress. Yet the majority of federal American law applies to Puerto Rico, and the amount of subsidies per capita given to Puerto Rico falls far short of those given to states. The public finance of Puerto Rico’s government has been in the red since 1973, and raising funds through issuance of public bonds to finance expenditures has only left Puerto Rico in the unenviable cycle of using new debt to pay off old debts.
In the beginning of the 2000s, an insolvent Puerto Rico continued to issue large amounts of government bonds, under the “assistance” of Banco Santander, UBS Group, Barclays, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and other Western financial capital monopolists. Beginning from 2006, Puerto Rico fell into a debt crisis, with public debt constituting close to 80% of Puerto Rico’s GDP. In 2014, Puerto Rico’s public bonds credit rating was downgraded to “junk status.”
In 2016, during the administration of President Obama the United States Congress enacted the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) to ensure the profits of Puerto Rico’s bondholders. PROMESA established a Fiscal Control Board run by leaders in finance and banking directly appointed by the United States President (local Puerto Ricans called this Board “La Junta”), which proceeded to implement far-reaching measures such as reducing public expenditures, raising taxes, and implementing austerity measures by cutting workers’ salaries and benefits. The Puerto Rico government has a delegate to the Fiscal Control Board, but has no right to vote.
The result of 120 years of American rule over Puerto Rico is that about half of Puerto Rico’s population live under the poverty line as set by the American federal government, while its unemployment rate sits at twice that of the average of the 50 states.
In March of 2017, the United States appointed US-born Ukrainian Natalie Jaresko to become the Executive Director of Puerto Rico’s Fiscal Control Board. Jaresko had previously served as Ukraine’s Minister of Finance from December 2014 to April 2016, where, following the country’s far-right coup, she oversaw the fire sales of Ukrainian government-held assets along with a group of Western capital monopolists led by the IMF, a massive cut in workers’ salaries and benefits, and the increase of all sorts of taxes and administrative charges, chief among them a $40 billion USD “aid package”.
By May of 2017, Puerto Rico’s total bond debt had reached $74 billion USD, with $123 billion USD in both bond debt and unfunded pension liabilities. In September 2017, Hurricane Maria slammed an already beleaguered Puerto Rico, with post-disaster reconstruction costs estimated at $139 billion USD. For comparison, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority held $4 trillion HKD or about $510 billion USD in its reserves as of the end of 2018. Puerto Rico’s area is 9104 square kilometers, population about 3.2 million—its land area is about eight times larger than Hong Kong, yet its population is roughly half of Hong Kong’s. The result of 120 years of American rule over Puerto Rico is that about half of Puerto Rico’s population live under the poverty line as set by the American federal government, while its unemployment rate sits at twice that of the average of the 50 states.
In facing these difficulties, Puerto Rico’s people can be said to be in a particularly tough spot: the majority of Puerto Rico’s people are discontent with their “second class citizenship” and the discriminatory treatment they have received that has resulted in their ongoing debt crisis. Yet many Puerto Ricans are also unwilling to push for independence given their existing legal rights to emigrate to the United States to find work. All the same, the majority of Puerto Ricans have struggled for fair treatment by the United States federal government and for governmental subsidies, and have expressed many times in referendums their desire to become a state, yet the United States government pays them no heed. To put it simply, the American government assumes the right of political and economic sovereignty over Puerto Rico and imposes all the duties of American citizenship onto Puerto Ricans, yet the American government will only grant Puerto Rico the status of a dependency and will not carry out the duties the American government has to its states onto Puerto Rico.
From this we can see the claim that “Hong Kong is being crushed by Chinese colonialism” pushed by the pro-imperialist camp is a complete fallacy which holds no water. The most noticeable distinction between the two situations is that under American colonial rule, all of Puerto Rico’s expenditures must go through the approval of the Fiscal Control Board controlled by people directly appointed by the United States. The primary mission of the public finances of Puerto Rico lays in the repaying of severe debts obligations weighing down Puerto Rico, debts concocted in the first place by discriminatory policies enacted by the United States.
On the contrary, Hong Kong’s public finances are independent from the Chinese central government. Not even a cent gets turned over by Hong Kong to China. In comparison, in the period of the Eleventh Five-Year Plan (2011-16), Shanghai municipality turned over a net accumulated ¥2.75 trillion RMB ($388 billion USD) to the central government, while Guangdong province turned over ¥3.14 trillion RMB ($443 billion USD). Not only was Hong Kong not compelled by the central government to become inundated with bogus debts, it also remains one of the country’s top financial centers. Owing to its special position as a link between the Mainland and the world market, large amounts of Mainland capital and profits from Hong Kong capital operating in the Mainland flood into Hong Kong, but Hong Kong has no obligation to “transfer pay” any of these back to the Mainland.
Where Hong Kong has the rights of the Mainland but not its obligations, absorbing the surplus value without contributing any of it back to the Mainland, Puerto Rico has become absolutely destitute under the thorough extortion of the American financial capitalists
Hong Kong’s relationship to the Mainland is exactly the opposite to that of Puerto Rico and the United States. Where Hong Kong has the rights of the Mainland but not its obligations, absorbing the surplus value without contributing any of it back to the Mainland, Puerto Rico has become absolutely destitute under the thorough extortion of the American financial capitalists, a place “producing” low-priced domestic helpers while racking up its debt to astronomical degrees. Meanwhile, under the compromise of “One Country, Two Systems,” Hong Kong has become a window to the world that facilitates the movement of public and private capital. Simultaneously, Hong Kong continues to be a base for imperialists and capitalists to extract surplus value from Mainland China. As such, despite Hong Kong’s gaping income inequality, it has the ability to be the employer of some 100,000 domestic workers from another economic ruin arising from more than one hundred years of American rule: the Philippines.
One of the deep-seated social undercurrents driving the Anti-Extradition movement is a realization that this is a time of the Mainland’s economic rise and the relative stagnation of Hong Kong. As the proxies of imperialism fear that they could truly lose their favored positions, they fanatically strive to reclaim their bygone sense of superiority. The reason why the protests proclaim a “fight for universal values” and not a fight for personal gain is due to their refusal to confront and criticize the parasitic economic foundations of colonialism and its political and cultural structure.
In other words, “Hong Kongers” (and “Taiwanese”) disdain to even understand the historical course of the world economy and China’s economy post-2000, especially in the period after 2008. “Hong Kongers” fervently believe that, because Hong Kong inherited the regalia of a European colonial government, they should be above the “chinks” [支那]. They earnestly call for a “UK-US-HK alliance”, even to the point of “we stand ready to fight for the United States,” all to “take back” and “restore” “everything” that seems to be on the verge of depletion. Under the influence of this thinking, they see a mirage of a “very free and democratic” Puerto Rico under American governance. Under the fits of rage occurring right before our eyes, this mirage takes on a form similar to the “Ukraine Dream”, propelling Hong Kong straight towards the actual fate of Puerto Rico and Ukraine—that of a sacrificial pawn of United States hegemony.