Hong Kong vs the neo-imperialists

Joseph Nathan

In the midst of the Trade War launched by Donald Trump on China, the U.S. is making use of another weapon, and that is, to incite the people of Hong Kong against Beijing.

Stay with us for an article in this regard published in the ‘Asian Times’, titled “Hong Kong vs the Neo-Imperialists”, by Singaporean of Chinese origin, Joseph Nathan, who undertakes projects for Malaysia and Indonesia, in the fields of infrastructure, aviation, and debt financing.

When news broke last Friday October 11 that some protesters in Hong Kong were setting up a provisional government to declare their own independence, a majority of the protesters were quick to shoot back that this announcement had been engineered by troublemakers to create undue tension between them and the Chinese government. Their quick response showed great level-headedness.

These “level-headed” protesters may not be as reckless as what some foreign media had been seeking to suggest over these past weeks. It is obvious that there are some troublemakers among them whose agenda is solely to fan the protest into a frenzy to force China into the hands of foreign powers. It may be critical for China and Hong Kong that they start differentiating the rotten apples and their sinister agenda from the rest of the “level-headed” protesters.

The capacity to stage such a massive protest over so many weeks is simply not within the reasonable scope of activists like Joshua Wong. While the breakaway island of Taiwan is a clear beneficiary of the protest, it alone does not have the capability or audacity to engage China in such a direct confrontation. There may be individuals from Taiwan, as there are individuals from within Hong Kong, but these are easy for the Chinese to identify and manage.

The U.S. and the British clearly have a role in the protest but their narrative of defending Hong Kong’s democracy and its people is looking less credible with each passing day. Britain, which was the former colonial master of Hong Kong, had 155 years of opportunities before 1997 to do so.

The destructive rise of neo-imperialists has been a major concern of many world leaders. Driven by the unrestrained pursuit of money and power, their only interest is to turn the world into their playground where they can lord it over everyone effortlessly.

The devastation of many economies in West Asia as a result of military interventions by the U.S. and its allies over the past 20 years shows Washington is only interested in the petrodollar. The same is true in other regions where the U.S. and its allies have sought to intervene in the name of democracy.

From Venezuela to Libya and the rest of Africa and South America, economies are falling like pins each time the neo-imperialists roll off their bowling balls. Their talks of humanitarianism or the need of rebalancing power against the rise of China or terrorism are just excuses that they use to blind everyone, including themselves.

This is the new evil, where democracy becomes subservient to the greed of capitalism. When the culmination of their devastations is so much greater than the combined devastations of both World Wars and terrorism, it is timely to be questioning the morale of their agenda.

These democracy champions themselves have been using violent responses to curb their own public protests and also failed to intervene where democracy and humanitarianism were severely breached just because there was no money to be made or because the perpetrators of these atrocities were their allies.

In this aspect, China has scored a major coup by its restraint with the Hong Kong protesters. Isn’t it ironic that democracy champions are actually less democratic and humane than a communist country?

China, unlike Russia or North Korea, is in a formidable position to challenge and expose the ambiguities of the neo-imperialists within the U.S. administration. Together with some European countries, they are aware that if neo-imperialism is to be allowed to propagate unabated, the future will definitely be very bleak for everyone. While the ideologies of China, Russia, and North Korea may be contentious, their confrontations against the destructive ideology of the neo-imperialists are not.

The Philippines and South Korea are starting to be more vocal against the U.S. military presence on their shores. Even Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad is increasingly vocal against the naval presence of the Chinese and the U.S. in the region. His concern over a possible military mishap in the region is not without merit.

These and others are calling out the U.S. for exaggerating the need for its military presence in the region.

As such, the recent naval access extension granted to the U.S. into the region by Singapore may become a thorny issue for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). As a bloc, its members will have to decide if they want to be complicit to the rise of neo-imperialism in the region.

Other world leaders cannot just sit back and allow neo-imperialism to propagate unabated, as should the U.S. end up derailing China economically or escalate its confrontation with Beijing into a military engagement, we will find ourselves degenerating back to the Dark Ages in no time.

The U.S. has clearly lost some of its competitive edge to the Chinese and has no one to blame but itself. It must return to strategic economic restructuring instead of continuing on the self-destructive path of neo-imperialist ideology. With its many exposed vulnerabilities, the U.S. needs serious restructuring of its own economy and must stop damaging the economies of others.

As the U.S. critically needs to improve its economy in real terms instead of rhetoric, the Democrats will have an advantage against Donald Trump in next year’s presidential election. Compared with the push to impeach him for his misuse of power, the protest in Hong Kong will mean very little to Trump at this stage.

If the European Union or Japan aspire to become a pivotal third power, free from the clutches of neo-imperialists within the U.S. administration, they need to start emphasizing the need for a more desirable world order.

In light of these insights, why would the Hong Kong protesters still aspire to seek the patronage of the neo-imperialists instead of China when it is clear that China is capable of delivering on its promises of shared prosperity? China has the success of Shenzhen to substantiate its competency to re-strategize Hong Kong forward.

Unless Hong Kong aspires to end up like one of those failed economies that fell prey to the neo-imperialists and their empty rhetoric, it is time that it accepts the hard fact that it will falter without the support of China and that none of those neo-imperialists will give a damn about its misfortune should all goodwill be lost.

At the end of the day, the talk of democracy and freedom means little if there is no socio-economic success to sustain such lofty aspirations.