Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDim Sum Surprise: Why the Hong Kong Model Won't Save Tibet
TPR[Wednesday, January 18, 2012 12:19]
By the Editorial Board of The Tibetan Political Review
Proponents of the Middle Way policy have recently been placing increased hope on Chinese law. Exhibit A in this argument is Article 31 of the Chinese Constitution, which allows for the creation of Special Administrative Regions such as Hong Kong. The claim is that Chinese law already provides for the type of autonomy that Tibetans demand, and whats missing is only political will from China to implement its own law.
There is a major problem with this view, unfortunately, and it is not the obvious ones of Chinas lack of political will or the legal non-enforceability of the Chinese constitution.
Rather, the missing factor is that even for Hong Kong, autonomy under Chinas Article 31 has always been understood to be only temporary. Hong Kongs freedoms are scheduled to expire after a transitional period, when the territory will then be absorbed into the Chinese political system. Strangely, this factor is wholly ignored in the public analysis of whether the Hong Kong model has utility for Tibet.
Looking Closely at Chinas Article 31
Article 31 was added to the 1982 Chinese Constitution for the purpose of easing Hong Kong and Macao (and possibly Taiwan) back under Chinese sovereignty. The inconvenient truth is that Hong Kongs current status is simply a prelude to full incorporation into China. The Basic Law, which serves as Hong Kongs mini-constitution, provides that Hong Kongs capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years. This means that, come 2047, Hong Kong will no longer be protected by its autonomous arrangement.
http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?c=4&t=1&id=30709&article=Dim+Sum+Surprise%3a+Why+the+Hong+Kong+Model+Won%27t+Save+Tibet
By the Editorial Board of The Tibetan Political Review
Proponents of the Middle Way policy have recently been placing increased hope on Chinese law. Exhibit A in this argument is Article 31 of the Chinese Constitution, which allows for the creation of Special Administrative Regions such as Hong Kong. The claim is that Chinese law already provides for the type of autonomy that Tibetans demand, and whats missing is only political will from China to implement its own law.
There is a major problem with this view, unfortunately, and it is not the obvious ones of Chinas lack of political will or the legal non-enforceability of the Chinese constitution.
Rather, the missing factor is that even for Hong Kong, autonomy under Chinas Article 31 has always been understood to be only temporary. Hong Kongs freedoms are scheduled to expire after a transitional period, when the territory will then be absorbed into the Chinese political system. Strangely, this factor is wholly ignored in the public analysis of whether the Hong Kong model has utility for Tibet.
Looking Closely at Chinas Article 31
Article 31 was added to the 1982 Chinese Constitution for the purpose of easing Hong Kong and Macao (and possibly Taiwan) back under Chinese sovereignty. The inconvenient truth is that Hong Kongs current status is simply a prelude to full incorporation into China. The Basic Law, which serves as Hong Kongs mini-constitution, provides that Hong Kongs capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years. This means that, come 2047, Hong Kong will no longer be protected by its autonomous arrangement.
http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?c=4&t=1&id=30709&article=Dim+Sum+Surprise%3a+Why+the+Hong+Kong+Model+Won%27t+Save+Tibet
Clearly, any change must and most likely will come from within the PRC...
Will Hong Kong be absorbed in 2047? Will Tibet ever be free? Will the PRC ever undergo revolution or dramatic political change?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 1130 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Dim Sum Surprise: Why the Hong Kong Model Won't Save Tibet (Original Post)
ellisonz
Jan 2012
OP
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)1. A lot can happen in 35 years
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)2. Let's hope so...
The PRC certainly isn't easing up on the repression button.