On September 5, the photographer Charlie Cole passed away aged only 64. Thirty years ago, in 1989, Cole was instrumental in showing the world the brutality of the repression of the Communist Party of China.
On June 5, 1989, while on the balcony of his hotel room overlooking Tiananmen Square in Beijing, he was one of the few photographers to photograph a lone man who stood in defiance to approaching armed tanks of the euphemistically styled People’s Liberation Army.
The man, a civilian carrying two ordinary shopping bags, tried to argue with one of the tank commanders but he refused to step aside to allow the armed tanks to proceed. Two men later took the man to the side, thus enabling the tanks to move ahead.
Whether the man got lost in the crowds or faced the consequences of his peaceful, non-violent actions remains unknown. What is certain is that the images of that day still represent the quintessential representation of non-violence, which contrasts with the more brutal enforcement by the People’s Liberation Army.
Thirty years have passed, yet the lessons of Tiananmen should not be forgotten. Official figures placed the death toll at around 241. About 7000 people were injured. Unofficial statistics present a different view, with some arguing that thousands were killed during these demonstrations.
Such reminders are needed from time to time. The People’s Republic of China has, since then, embarked on a charm offensive. It invests heavily in soft power, and it tries to present itself as an economic power quite different from the rest of the other world powers. It has succeeded on many fronts. It hosted the 2008 Olympic Games with little focus on its appalling human rights record and it continues to attract considerable Foreign Direct Investment.
Recently, the full wrath of the People’s Republic of China was in full view in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong administration, which is highly sympathetic to the regime in Beijing, wanted to introduce an Extradition Bill which would legalise extraditions to China. Residents feared that this Bill would be used to extradite political dissidents. Facing mounting pressures, Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam permanently withdrew the controversial bill. Protestors, however, want more.
They want assurances that this bill would not be reintroduced at a later date, to be acknowledged as protestors rather than rioters; they want the unconditional release of protestors and political dissidents, an independent enquiry into police brutality and the introduction of free and fair elections – in effect, universal suffrage.
Cynics may argue that such demands weren’t met by the previous colonisers. However, it was through British rule that many Hong Kongers got their first taste of the ideals of British liberty and freedom.
While the former colonial master has given up its rights over Hong Kong, it still has a meaningful say in the region and the future of the former colony.
The international community cannot turn its gaze the other way
The international community too cannot turn its gaze the other way, particularly as demonstrators are subject to tear gas and water cannons in their quest to “Resist Beijing” and “liberate Hong Kong.”
Under the terms of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the People’s Republic of China is bound to preserve the “one country, two systems” policy and to have all the relevant safeguards to protect Hong Kong’s unique way of life and its legal system. Until 2014, a Foreign Affairs Select Committee also reported to the House of Commons about progress in terms of the Joint Declaration. China has now dismissed this as a “historical document” which lacks any “practical significance.”
In real terms, this means that China is blatantly in breach of an international declaration. As the last Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, rightly observed, “If China breaks its word over Hong Kong, how can you trust China anywhere else?”
There also seems to be agreement among liberals and conservatives over the dangerous nature of the Chinese regime. Donald Trump has rightly recognised that China is not only a major trading partner of the US but also a strategic rival. Therefore, the most important bilateral relationship cannot be treated like any other relationship. George Soros has recognised the dangers of President Xi Jinping and has singled him out as one of the enemies of liberty. Both make a valid point.
Much of the discourse in the West speaks about the “rise of China.” This is incorrect. The Chinese have always been a great civilisation – the centre of a vast and strong empire which was commonly referred to as “the Middle Kingdom.” It was surrounded by relatively smaller countries which did not pose a threat to its existence.
Historically, before the Xinhai Revolution of 1911, China recognised other countries as tributaries to Beijing. It did not regard itself as being equal to other states, and it did not seek to engage with the rest of the world.
Perhaps much of this attitude prevails to this day. Its dominant economic position has placed it, once again, in a position of superiority. Its careful use of soft power, the promise of lucrative commercial investment and its ruthless regime have turned most other countries into old tributaries of Beijing. It has few friends on the international system. But this is matched by the weak voices who demand more accountability on its human rights record.
The protestors in Hong Kong, however, remind us that this issue cannot be ignored for much longer. The soft power and economic might are masks for something far more sinister and dangerous.