- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 1223 Hour
- Reading permission
This post was edited by abramicus at 2014-10-6 14:03|
HAS CHINA FULLY WEIGHED THE RISKS OF INACTION? OR IS IT BUSY TRYING TO APPEASE THE GHOSTS OF FOREIGN RETALIATION? WHERE IS COURAGE IF IT IS NOT INSIDE ONE'S HEART?
Russian, German and American politicians and military strategists have at different times commented on what they all perceived as a glaring fault of Chinese strategic thinking, which Chinese thinkers themselves seem quite comfortable with, and are oblivious of its cost and risk to their security and prosperity.
Couched in various terms, the best one is that Chinese have "too many ghosts". We are not talking about simply having enemies, of which China does indeed has many. We are talking of even more contingencies that could be disadvantageous for China, like in the 1990's failing to join the WTO, conflict with Japan, and trade embargoes on Chinese exports. They are real all right. But they have a restrictive effect on China's actions, such as implementing Article 23 in HKSAR in 2002 and 2003. We cannot fault the leaders of China for being "overcautious" as they do have very real threats. Rather, we should fault them for being "insufficiently cautious" instead, because they forget to apply the risk and reward paradigm to their default position of inaction. Doing nothing about Article 23 does have the risk of bolder and more extensive foreign interference in the exercise of sovereignty of China in Hong Kong, in matters of peace and order, which if unattended to will give the residents of Hong Kong that China is not its real sovereign, but the foreign countries that can either create chaos or impose peace at will.
The present Occupy Central is the touchstone of China's sovereignty in Hong Kong. Defeat and eradicate it, and China will have proven it can be counted on to defend the people of Hong Kong. Allow and appease it, and China will be proven it is not the true sovereign power in Hong Kong, and its residents should put their loyalties elsewhere, where their rights and property will be safer.
The residents of Mong Kok have won the battle for China, but is China willing and ready to win the War on her Sovereignty in Hong Kong? Is China afraid of the ghosts of foreign retaliation and trade sanctions that it is willing to rest on the laurels of the ordinary citizens of Mong Kok, until the next shoe falls, or the next insurrection arises? Or is China brave enough to ask the LegCo to adopt a National Sovereignty Law as the basis for exorcising the traitors, subversionists, and secessionists henceforth and banishing them to the outer darkness where they will shiver and gnash their teeth?
Again, China should weigh the risks and rewards of INACTION, and in this case, there is hardly any reward save for a short term flow of trade, but every risk of losing not just its sovereignty over Hong Kong, but also over other restive regions that the West will be therefore emboldened to incite to rebellion and secession from China. If it again chooses INACTION, then it will only have itself to blame when every region that foreign influence can reach will flare up in rebellion, and secede from China.