With China willing to discuss 'Dalai Lama’s future', Tibetan fate hangs in balance

When Modi was Chief Minister of Gujarat

My article With China willing to discuss 'Dalai Lama’s future', Tibetan fate hangs in balance appeared in Firstpost

Beijing has not called Dalai Lama a ‘separatist’ leader; instead, it has shown interest in discussing his ‘personal future’
With China willing to discuss 'Dalai Lama’s future', Tibetan fate hangs in balance

On May 24, Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed a public meeting in Mandi to support Bollywood actress and BJP candidate Kangana Ranaut. In the course of his speech, he mentioned Tibet, something he rarely does. According to a press release from the PMO, Modi asserted: “The Congress government was so timid that it was afraid to even mention the name of Dalai Lama Ji. I frequently engage in discussions with Dalai Lama Ji. He is a stalwart of our rich heritage. India is the land of Buddha, and the Modi government has been actively promoting this heritage.”
The ‘frequent discussions’ are not in the public domain; we only know that from time to time, a phone call is made from Delhi to Dharamsala on the Dalai Lama’s birthday.
This statement, however, raises the issue of Tibet, which seems to have been dormant for years.
The political head of Tibet’s government-in-exile, Penpa Tsering, recently visited the United States and Canada. Everywhere, the Sikyong conveyed the urgent situation in Tibet “highlighting China’s efforts to eradicate Tibet’s distinct culture and identity and assimilate the Tibetan people”.
During an encounter with the Tibetan Diaspora, Penpa Tsering noted that the priorities and policies of his government were to enhance the stability and efficiency of departments within the Central Tibetan Administration and implement the Dalai Lama’s Middle Way policy.
He admitted that he was in contact with Beijing; according to Firstpost, the Sikyong stated: “We have had back-channel engagement since last year. But we have no immediate expectations from it. It has to be a long-term one.” Penpa Tsering, however, insisted that the talks were “very informal”.
PTI quoted him, saying, “I have my interlocutor who deals with people in Beijing. Then there are other elements also trying to reach out to us.”
Beijing was quick to retort: “[We] will talk only with the representatives of the Dalai Lama and not the officials of the Tibetan government-in-exile.”
The positive side was that Beijing did not call the Dalai Lama a separatist and instead said it was ready to discuss his “personal future”.
This has been Beijing’s position for the past four decades: the discussions can only be about the Dalai Lama’s future.

The Future
This, however, raises the issue of the future of Tibet and the Tibetan people.
In the early 1980s, the Dalai Lama envisaged a Middle Path approach, probably based on the “One Country, Two Systems” slogan coined by Deng Xiaoping at the end of the 1970s.
The Tibetan leader elaborated his vision for the future in two documents, a Five-Point Peace Plan in 1987 in Washington, DC, and his Strasbourg Proposal in 1988.
The first of the five points was “transformation of the whole of Tibet into a zone of peace”, a concept certainly appealing for India; another point was “respect for the Tibetan people’s fundamental human rights and democratic freedoms”.
The ‘Zone of Peace’ would soon be dropped, and the riots in Lhasa in 1989 and the subsequent imposition of martial law demonstrated the limits of the second.
In his Strasbourg Proposal, the Dalai Lama spoke of “the whole of Tibet known as Cholka-Sum (U-Tsang, Kham and Amdo) should become a self-governing democratic political entity founded on law by agreement of the people for the common good and the protection of themselves and their environment, in association with the People’s Republic of China”.
This was before the events of Tiananmen Square; before June 1989, there were probably chances that China could join the concert of democratic nations and be a normal state.
Ten rounds of negotiations took place between the Dalai Lama’s representatives (the CTA’s representatives have always been banned in Beijing) between 2002 and 2010. This led nowhere.

China, a Great Power
Things have changed since then; China has become the second most important economic player in the world, while the situation within the Middle Kingdom has grimly deteriorated since 2012, at least in terms of individual liberty.
Today, after the recent events in Hong Kong and the military threats against the ‘renegade island’ (Taiwan), ‘One Country, Two Systems’ cannot be envisioned anymore. This makes the situation in Tibet (and in Xinjiang, the other Chinese colony) more precarious than ever.

Taiwan
In February, a Chinese writer living in exile, Yuan Hongbing, revealed that China planned to use the Kuomintang’s (KMT’s) influence in Taiwan’s legislature to boost its United Front strategy. Yuan said that the information came from a “princeling” (son of a Chinese revolutionary leader) whom Xi Jinping does not dare to challenge. According to Chinascope, a US website carrying information on the Mainland, “the CCP is not just using military intimidation to destabilise Taiwan; it is also using propaganda, the deployment of agents, and the expansion of the KMT’s legislative power to override the Taiwanese administration.”
Last week, Chinese military spokesperson senior Colonel Wu Qian told a press conference that China’s reunification is an irreversible trend in history and that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is ready to take resolute actions to counter any “Taiwan independence”.
Soon after Lai Ching-te took charge as Taiwan’s president on May 20, the Chinese military warned Taiwan that “independence” would mean “war” and Beijing would thwart any foreign interference in support of “separatist activities” in the democratic-ruled island.
The recent military drills that followed were more to ‘scare the chicken’ than a rehearsal, as an ‘influence’ takeover will certainly be less costly and risky for Beijing. Yuan added that “the CCP’s Taiwan policy has shifted from coercion and enticement to psychological warfare, aiming to demoralise Taiwanese.”

Deterioration in Hong Kong
Around the same time, the BBC reported that a court in Hong Kong “found 14 pro-democracy activists guilty of subversion in the largest use yet of a China-imposed National Security Law. They included former lawmakers Leung Kwok-hung and Helena Wong, journalist-turned-campaigner Gwyneth Ho, and ordinary Hong Kongers who joined the mass protests of 2019, such as nurse Winnie Yu”.
Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee took Beijing’s side and declared that his government will do its “utmost to prevent, suppress, and impose punishment” for any activities “endangering national security”.

Situation in Tibet
In Tibet, the situation is also rapidly deteriorating. A report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) noted, “Since 2016, the Chinese government has dramatically accelerated the relocation of rural villagers and herders in Tibet. The government says that these relocations—often to areas hundreds of kilometres away—are voluntary.” The Chinese rationale was to “improve people’s livelihoods and protect the ecological environment”.
Using over 1,000 official Chinese media articles between 2016 and 2023, as well as government publications and academic field studies, HRW said that China’s own media reports showed that participation in “whole-village relocation” programmes in Tibet is in fact compulsory. “In one case, 200 households out of 262 in the village did not initially want to relocate to a new location, which was nearly 1,000 kilometres away. In another village scheduled for relocation, all the residents except for a Chinese Communist Party activist initially disagreed with the plan to move the village,” said the report.
HRW could not find a single case where a village scheduled for relocation was able to avoid being moved.
What is left of the ‘genuine autonomy’ the Dalai Lama was dreaming of in the 1980s? Probably not much today.

Another Report

The Washington-based International Campaign for Tibet reported in May that the Buddhist Association of China (BAC), a non-political organisation, “is becoming a key instrument in the Chinese Communist Party’s strategy to assimilate and transform Tibetan Buddhism, particularly in relation to the search for and recognition of reincarnate lamas”.
When it speaks of the ‘sinification of Buddhism’, Beijing is obviously thinking of the succession of the Dalai Lama.
Since President Xi Jinping’s announcement of his intent to sinify all the religions in China, the BAC has been “mandated as the tool to implement campaigns that will contribute to its fruition, particularly in connection with Tibetan Buddhism”.
Founded in 1953, the BAC’s charter was amended in 2020 to include “Sinification of Buddhism in China”, one of its objectives in order to “support the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the socialist system, study and implement Xi Jinping’s Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, and adhere to the direction of the Sinification of Buddhism in China”.
During the recent Two Sessions held in Beijing in March 2024, Wang Huning, the Party’s chief ideologue, mentioned that the BAC “carried out 10 research and inspections in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Tibet-related counties in Sichuan Province on promoting the sinification of Tibetan Buddhism”.
In the present circumstances, hopes for a better tomorrow are presently limited.

One can only hope that when the Indian prime minister calls the Dalai Lama on July 6 to wish him on his 89th birthday, the Tibetan leader will be able to convince PM Modi that the fates of Tibet and India are intimately linked, in particular as far as the boundary between them is concerned.

Curious tale of missing Hong Kong publishers

My article Curious tale of missing Hong Kong publishers appeared today in the Edit Page of The Pioneer

Here is the link...

Hongkongers' rights and freedoms were enshrined in the basic law, but it is unfortunate that Beijing believes that ‘one country’ is paramount. The disappearance of the publisher raises questions about freedom of expression

Hong Kong ( ‘Fragrant Harbour’) was to be a model of governance, it may not be. In 1997, the territory’s transfer of sovereignty from the British Crown to the People’s Republic of China marked the end of 156 years of ‘imperialism’ for the Communist leadership, while for the British, it signalled the disappearance of the last remnants of their Empire.
Hong Kong became China’s Special Administrative Region, governed by a principle known as ‘One Country, Two Systems’, a genial brainchild of China’s paramount leader, Deng Xiaoping, who thought that the recipe could later be applied to Taiwan, the ‘rebel island’. But recently, the scheme has again shown its limits.
The Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1997 had provided Hong Kong with ‘a high degree of autonomy in all areas except defence and foreign affairs’, while the territory’s political and judicial systems could continue to function independently from those of the mainland.
The guarantees for Hongkongers’ individual rights and freedoms were enshrined in the Hong Kong basic law, the territory’s ‘Constitution’. Today, the entire system is in jeopardy due to some strange events. What has happened?
When in late December, Mr Lee Bo, a bookshop owner and publisher in Hong Kong went missing, his wife filed a police complaint saying that he had “disappeared”. Soon after, alarm bells started ringing louder: Four of Mr Lee’s colleagues — Mr Gui Minhai, Mr Cheung Ji-ping, Mr Lui Bo and Mr Lam Wing-kei — were also untraceable.
Mr Lee Bo was last seen in the Chai Wan warehouse of his Mighty Current publishing house which specializes in books banned on the mainland, often revealing the latest secrets about the Party’s apparatchiks.
According to some rumors, Mr Lee Bo who had specialised on books about the Chinese President, was working on a ‘private life’ of Mr Xi Jinping? Tricky business; one can understand that it was not really appreciated in Beijing, which in the recent months has greatly tightened its grip on Internet and literary freedom in general.
Mr Teng Biao, a fellow at Harvard Law School and formerly an academic at the Chinese University told The South China Morning Post: “China is very worried that the freedom of expression and of publication in Hong Kong would affect mainland politics.”
Political and gossip books on the Chinese leadership have been a lucrative business for Hong Kong booksellers as mainland visitors are avid readers of ‘censured’ literature, unavailable at home.
Mr Lee Bo could have been abducted to intimidate other publishers distributing ‘messages unfavourable to China’s ruling regime’, says the Hong Kong newspaper. Beijing has always believed in the saying, “Kill a few chickens to scare the monkeys”.
What exactly happened to Mr Lee Bo is not known, but in a note to his wife, he said that he was in China mainland assisting some ‘investigations’, since then, his wife has withdrawn her case. The issue has taken a serious political turn as Hongkongers are particularly attached to their special status and freedom of expression.
Remember the ‘Occupy Central’ movement in September 2014, when tens of thousands of Hongkongers took to the streets in the former British colony to pressure Beijing to keep its promises. In 2004 already, Beijing had warned that it would have to ‘approve’ of any changes to Hong Kong’s election laws. Ten years later, the pro-democracy activists fought to make the second part of Deng’s scheme, ‘One Country, Two Systems’ as important as the first. Beijing unfortunately believes that ‘one country’ is paramount.
To come back to Mr Lee Bo’s case, Reuters comes to the same conclusion: “While the facts surrounding Mr Lee Bo’s case are still unclear, there is significant public disquiet over the circumstances of his disappearance with speculation that he was abducted to the mainland by security officials or triads. Much more than just the ‘whodunnit’ questions, it is the implications of Mr Lee Bo’s disappearance with regard to the One Country, Two Systems model.”
Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying joined the fray and warned: “It is unacceptable for mainland law enforcement officers to carry out duties in Hong Kong, because it does not comply with the basic law.” The basic law clearly guarantees not only a high level of autonomy, but also freedom of speech, rule of law and judicial independence. To further complicate the situation, Mr Lee Bo is a British passport holder.
UK Foreign Minister Philip Hammond suggested that Beijing would be guilty of an “egregious breach of the principle … if speculation that Chinese security forces had abducted Lee in the former colony was confirmed”. Mr Hammond added: “It would not be acceptable for somebody to be spirited out of Hong Kong in order to face charges in a different jurisdiction. …It is an essential part of the settlement in Hong Kong that it has its own judicial system and it is solely responsible for trying offences that occur in Hong Kong.”
During the same Press conference, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi did not answer directly a question on whether the ‘missing persons’ were under Chinese detention, but he asserted that, even if Mr Lee Bo held a British passport, he was ‘first and foremost a Chinese citizen’.
In a recent editorial, The Global Times articulated Beijing’s position: The booksellers were exercising an ‘evil influence in China through their political publications’. The tabloid went further; it argued that it was reasonable for Chinese law enforcement agencies to “circumvent the law when they seek cooperation from an individual for investigation.” Quite frightening!
The Global Times suggested it was legal for the Chinese authorities to probe Causeway Bay Books, as it publishes and sells political books targeting mainland readers and “creates special interference to the maintenance of order in the mainland”.
The same editorial said it was fine to use means to “get around local laws …and make one comply with their investigations without breaching systemic bottom lines”.
What ‘breaching bottom lines’ means is not clear, but Beijing probably feels that the basic law is ‘first and foremost a Chinese law’.
On January 10, tens of thousands demonstrators gathered outside Government headquarters in Hong Kong, where the pro-democracy protests were held in 2014; they shouted slogans such, ‘Release Hong Kong Booksellers Now!’ or ‘Today’s Lee Bo is you and me tomorrow’.  But will Beijing listen?
Today, while the younger generation in Hong Kong is certainly not ready to become another of China’s ‘minorities’, the question is also vital for the future of ‘greater China’. While Taiwan will certainly watch carefully the unfolding of the situation in Hong Kong, in Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia, the populations also aspiring to ‘another system’ too will follow the Hong Kong events closely.

Who wants to unify under the central leadership?

Yesterday, The South China Morning Post reported that a directive had been issued by the Party “for higher education entities to unify under the central leadership”.
The Hong Kong daily affirms that the Communist Party is tightening “its grip on Chinese universities by reaffirming the party secretary’s leading role in them.”
The ‘directive’ was released by the General Office of the Communist Party of China.
It says that after the fourth Plenum of the 18th CPC Central Committee (to be held next week) “all departments at universities across the country shall conscientiously make implementations that adhere to the party’s leading core position”.
You can understand why the students in Hong Kong are increasingly nervous about the 'One Country' scheme, in which the 'Two Systems' will go to the trap.
In the meantime, Zhang Xiaoming, director of Beijing’s Liaison Office in Hong Kong stated that the ‘Occupy Central’ movement is “a serious social and political event in that it violates the ‘one country’ principle, challenges the central authority, ignores the Basic Law, and is an illegal activity in flagrant violation of the existing laws of Hong Kong.”
He does not even speak anymore of 'Two Systems'.
Very surprising is the silence of the Tibetan Administration in Dharamsala, which has kept completely quiet.
Perhaps they have also become believers of ‘One Country’!
It would be sad!
Zhang Xiaoming, as usual, described the ‘Occupy Central’ movement as an attempt by the West to trigger a new ‘color revolution’ and “to pressure the Central Government and the HKSAR Government, and to require the NPC Standing Committee to rescind the decision that has been in force and the Chief Executive and SAR government officials to step down.”
But it is simpler than that: the Hong Kong students are just fighting for their freedom of speech, of thought, for their future.
Last month, in an editorial in the Party Journal, Qiushi (‘Seeking Truth’), it was announced that Peking University had directed its students and professors to “fight against speech and actions that criticise the Communist Party”.
It is what might happen to the students in Hong Kong in a few years from now, as ‘One Country’ will always prevail on ‘One System’.
The directive mentioned above directed Chinese universities “to establish a unified leadership under the party committee, cooperate and coordinate with the party and seriously carry out the essence of democratic centralism within the party.”
It is what the Hong Kong students do not want to happen in 5 or 10 years time.

Makings of a serious mass movement

My article (Edit Page) entitled Makings of a serious mass movement appeared yesterday in The Pioneer.


Here is the link...

Pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong believe that, in ‘One Country, Two Systems', the second part of the promise is more important than the first. Beijing’s emphasis on the first has left them disturbed

On October 1, the People’s Republic of China’s founding day, Zhang Xiaoming, director of Beijing’s liaison office in Hong Kong, told the media with a smile, “The sun rises as usual”. This was an indirect comment on the Occupy Central movement in Hong Kong. Is it only wishful thinking from Beijing?
Three days later, Xinhua published an article accusing the Western media of carrying biased articles on the recent protests in Hong Kong and “promoting democracy”. The Chinese news agency writes that the Occupy Central movement in Hong Kong is one example of the West’s partiality. The article blasted the US “for providing media and financial support” to the protest movement; it further warned that, as the “color” revolutions in Egypt, Thailand, Libya, and Ukraine, all assisted by the West, ended up in domestic chaos and social turmoil, a “Hong Kong Spring” would inevitably lead to a similar situation.
Nobody can deny that the change of regimes in the above examples brought instability to their respective countries, but there is another side to the coin.  First, contrary to what Beijing believes, democracy does not belong to the West or the United States; it is a universal value practised the world over (though not in China as yet). India practised it since times immemorial. Was not Suddhodana, the Buddha’s father the ‘elected’ raja of the Sakyas? The small republics of northern India were ruled in a ‘democratic’ way, long before the US existed, so why always associate democracy with the West.
Then, the Indian experience shows that democracy can deliver a strong and decisive leader who, with the backing of the masses, can lead the nation. Beijing should have noticed this when Mr Xi Jinping visited India!
Recently again, President Xi Jinping dismissed the notions of ‘Western-style’ political reform for China and affirmed the importance of one-party rule for China.
One can however seriously ask: Can the scheme, ‘One Country, Two Systems’, work? Can there be ‘Two Chinas’? One communist and the other democratic? This question is crucial not only for China’s future, but for Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia too, aspiring to ‘another system’, if not a separate country.
Let us look at the recent ‘pro-democracy’ incidents in Hong Kong. During the ongoing Occupy Central movement, tens of thousands of Hong Kongers have taken to the streets in the former British colony to pressure Beijing to keep its promises.
The latest news is that Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying has appointed his deputy Carrie Lam to lead a team of senior officials to meet with student leaders. Though the pro-Beijing leadership affirms that the students’ protests are dwindling, talks are on for ‘reforms’.
What will happen if the police uses riot gear, teargas or rubber bullets tomorrow or in the future? The police will not be different here than in Tibet or Xinjiang. Can it use another ‘system’? It probably cannot, and the younger generation in Hong Kong is certainly not ready to become another of China’s ‘minorities’.
When, after years of negotiations, the UK returned Hong Kong to China, the colony was promised “a high degree of autonomy” for the next 50 years (similarly, the Dalai Lama today asks for a “genuine autonomy” for Tibet).
The former British colony came under ‘One Country, Two Systems’, which supposedly guarantees freedom of speech, of assembly and of religion and a free press. All this is enshrined in the Basic Law, which governs Hong Kong since 1997. But in 2004, Beijing warned that it would have to “approve” of any change to Hong Kong’s election laws.
Today, the pro-democracy activists believe that, in ‘One Country, Two Systems’, the second part of the promise is more important than the first. This is not the case with Beijing.
When Mr Leung announced that the nominating committee will be modelled on the existing election committee, loyal to Beijing, which selected him in 2012, former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten said that Beijing was not keeping its commitments “by hiding behind flexible legal language”.
On August 31, the National People’s Congress had asserted that only after approving candidates, would it allow direct elections in 2017. This brought the differences between the different parties to the fore; candidates for Chief Executive must gain the support of a majority of a ‘nominating committee’ (packed with Beijing supporters); further, only two or three candidates can contest. Beijing’s blessing is, thus, necessary.
The young demonstrators sing another song, “Give us real universal suffrage”. Interestingly, one observes a change of pattern in the protest movement. The New York Times reported the case of a 17-year old student, Joshua Wong, who has been at the forefront of a student movement for democracy in Hong Kong: “He was born less than nine months before this former British colony’s handover to China in 1997, and raised here at a time when the party has tried mightily to win over the people and shape them into patriotic Chinese citizens. His prominence in the protest movement also embodies a shift in politics. [It] has confounded the local government and infuriated its communist supervisors in the mainland.”
This is what worries Beijing: Another generation is ready to take over the struggle. Further, could there be another Tiananmen in the making despite the tight censure of Hong Kong news in the mainland?
There is no doubt that if the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ model fails, it will have serious repercussions for other parts of China (particularly in Tibet and Xinjiang). And in Taiwan too, which has recently been offered a similar scheme (though Taipei immediately declined).
In April 1989, the Communist Party’s mouthpiece, The People’s Daily, published a front-page editorial denouncing the students on the Square, using the word “chaos”, a notion violently objected to by the students. The same newspaper says now that Hong Kong would “fall into chaos if the protests were not dealt with according to law”.
Beijing’s language may not help in the long run, especially when it says: “[The protesters] should not be so blatant in undermining the rule of law, stability, and order.” The fact that Beijing is not ready to stick to its promises could have other consequences. Several years back, during an interview with the Dalai Lama, I asked the Tibetan leader: “If, tomorrow, you sign an agreement with the Chinese, do you think that they will respect this agreement more than they did the 17-Point Agreement with Tibet in 1951?”
The Dalai Lama had said that he was quite certain that “international pressure” could force China to keep its promises. This does not seem to be the case today.

One Country, Two Systems

My article One Country, Two Systems appeared in today's Opinion Page of The Statesman.

Here is the link...

Several years back, during an interview with the Dalai Lama, I questioned the Tibetan leader on the 17-Point Agreement signed in 1951 between the Lhasa government and Beijing. It seemed clear that whatever the Chinese then offered to the Tibetans was not implemented on the ground by Beijing. My question was therefore: “If tomorrow you [the Tibetans] signed an agreement with the Chinese, do you think that they will respect this agreement more than they did with the 17-Point Agreement?”
The Tibetan leader explained his views: “I think that there is more possibility today [that they will respect a new accord]; since the 17-Point Agreement was signed in 1951, the world has very much changed and China too has changed. Unless the clock is taken back, and China returns to what it was in 1950, I feel that there is more hope today.”
He added that he was quite certain that ‘international pressure’ could force China to keep its promises.
This statement is worth looking at in the perspective of the recent ‘pro-democracy’ incidents in Hong Kong. During the ongoing ‘Occupy Central’ movement, tens of thousands of Hongkongers have taken to the streets of the former British colony to exert pressure on Beijing to keep what they perceive were the Communist regime’s promises. The BBC rightly questioned: ‘Hong Kong protests: Did China go back on its promises?”
The latest news is that Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying refused to step down following an ultimatum from students demanding his resignation. Leung however announced that he had appointed his deputy, Carrie Lam to lead a team of senior officials to meet with student leaders. Though some students reacted angrily to the chief executive’s speech, others called for calm and asked for time to negotiate. But what will happen if the police uses riot gear, teargas and rubber bullets? It is difficult to predict. How was this point reached?
In 1997, after years of negotiations, the UK returned Hong Kong to China; the colony was promised ‘a high degree of autonomy’ for the next 50 years. It sounded similar to the ‘genuine autonomy’ asked for by the Dalai Lama.  But in 2004 already, Beijing warned that it had to approve  changes to Hong Kong’s election laws. Today, for the protesters, it is not a question of change, but of interpretation of the Basic Law. For the pro-democracy activists, in the scheme ‘One Country, Two Systems’, the second part was more important than the first. This is not the case in Beijing, which believes ‘One Country’ is the paramount feature.
On 31 August, the National People’s Congress (NPC) asserted that only after approving candidates, it would allow direct elections in 2017. The ‘Occupy Central’ movement brought the differences between the different parties to the fore. Alan Hoo, chairman of the Basic Law Institute, a well-known pro-Beijing lawyer told the BBC News that China had not broken any promise: “I think that its position is grossly misunderstood. Firstly, it’s not a promise. It is a legal obligation, a constitutional obligation that they put in the Basic Law.”
Of course, Article 45 of the Basic Law specifically refers to ‘one person, one vote’. “The ultimate aim is the selection of the chief executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee,” says Hoo.
However, according to the announcement of the NPC’s Standing Committee, candidates for chief executive must gain the support of a majority of a ‘nominating committee’ (packed with Beijing supporters); further, only two or three candidates can contest. In other words, Beijing’s blessing is necessary. The young demonstrators sing another song, “Give us real universal suffrage”.
CY Leung, the current chief executive, announced that the nominating committee will be modelled on the existing election committee, loyal to Beijing, which selected him in 2012. Former Hong Kong governor Chris Patten now accuses Beijing of not keeping its commitments “by hiding behind flexible legal language”.
For the Communist regime in Beijing, it is not only a question of semantics. If the model ‘One Country, Two Systems’ fails, it would have serious repercussions for other parts of the Middle Kingdom, in Tibet and Xinjiang of course, but also Taiwan which has recently been offered a similar scheme (though Taipei immediately declined). Interestingly, one observes a change of pattern in the protest movement. The New York Times reported the case of a 17-year-old student, Joshua Wong who has been at the forefront of a student movement for democracy in Hong Kong  ~ “Mr Wong is troubling confirmation for the authorities that the first generation in Hong Kong to grow up under Chinese rule is by many measures also the one most alienated from Beijing’s influence. He was born less than nine months before this former British colony’s handover to China in 1997, and raised here at a time when the party has tried mightily to win over the people and shape them into patriotic Chinese citizens. His prominence in the protest movement also embodies a shift in politics. [It] has confounded the local government and infuriated its Communist supervisors in the mainland.”
This is what worries Beijing: another generation will take over the struggle. Can there be another Tiananmen in the making?  In April 1989, the Communist Party’s mouthpiece, The People’s Daily, published a front-page editorial denouncing the students in the Square, using the word ‘chaos’, a notion violently objected to by the students. The same newspaper now says that Hong Kong would “fall into chaos if the protests were not dealt with according to law.”
Some argue that Hong Kong and Tiananmen cases are different. The former British colony comes under ‘One Country, Two Systems’, which supposedly guarantees freedom of speech, of assembly and of religion and a free press. All this is enshrined in the Basic Law, which governs Hong Kong since 1997.
The South China Morning Post,  however, recently reported that President Xi Jinping dismissed the notions of Western-style political reform for China and affirmed the importance of one-party rule in China.  Can there be Two Chinas? One Communist and one democratic?
Once again, the Tibet and Taiwan issues are closely related to this. On 1 October, the foundation day of the People’s Republic of China,  Zhang Xiaoming, director of the central government’s liaison office in Hong Kong, told the media with a smile: “The sun rises as usual.” How long will it remain a valid statement?
At the same time, Xinhua violently attacked the Hong Kong protesters: “In the name of true universal suffrage, they attempt to deceive the public. Through the illegal ‘Occupy Central’, they attempt to paralyse Hong Kong’s business districts in order to blackmail China’s central government and the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. If they really want to express their requests, they should be peaceful, rational, and lawful. They should not be so blatant in undermining the rule of law, stability, and order.”
An editorial stated that the students were acting as a pawn of the Western anti-China forces. This is certainly not the best way to handle such a delicate issue.
In the meanwhile, the Dalai Lama has announced that unofficial discussions were on for pilgrimage to Wutai Shan, the sacred mountain in Shanxi province: “It’s not finalised, not yet, but the idea is there… informally, I expressed my desire,” he said.
Such  a  visit  would  of  course  entail  a  huge  security  risk  for  the  Tibetan  leader,  and  would  it  solve  the  problem of  ‘genuine autonomy’ for his people?  Probably not, but it is worth watching the unfolding of the Hong Kong saga to see what China really means by ‘one country, two systems’.