A Pathway to Peace

For nearly a year Hong Kong has been facing a growing number of seemingly insurmountable challenges. A U.S.- China trade war, an ongoing stream of anti-government protests, and a global pandemic have all pushed Hong Kong’s economy and political stability closer and closer to the cliff’s edge. Like many of you, I have grown rather pessimistic and can no longer state with absolute certainty that this will all pass, that our lives will soon get to catch even a glimpse of normality. However, I refuse to believe that there is no path forward, that Hong Kong will inevitably meet a disastrous end. There is a way out for Hong Kong; it all comes down to how willing people are to put their differences aside and compromise. In my view, Hong Kong will find the peace it desperately needs as long as the following conditions are met:

Anti-government movement

1. They must cease all forms of violence at once. This approach is not only utterly anti-democratic, but it also polarizes a society whose divisions cannot be stretched any further.
2. They must peacefully raise their concerns about Beijing’s policies, but never take their anger out on law-abiding Mainland citizens. Targeting mainlanders simply because of their origin will only perpetuate the conflict. We all become better citizens (and better people) when we embrace diversity.
3. They must uphold true democratic values. In a democracy, factions cannot hope to impose their will at all costs. Virtually by definition, democracies strive to integrate different viewpoints. Protesters need to accept that there are people out there who don’t share their ideology.
4. They must look into the future and never into the past. Reminiscing about Hong Kong’s colonial past is not only foolish but it also undermines the movement’s supposed democratic character; there is nothing democratic about being a colony. Hongkongers will prevail as long as they fight for what this city can be, not for what it once was.

Governments of Hong Kong and China

1. They must actively listen to the people’s demands. Most observers will agree that the conflict’s origins largely emanate from a widespread lack of trust, and this lack of trust is nothing but the result of the city’s and China’s failure to engage in a constructive dialogue with the opposition. The government is not required to give in to every single demand, but it has the moral obligation to address the opposition’s anxieties for the sake of Hong Kong’s stability.
2. Regarding the nation’s symbols and identity, they must educate, not impose. Under the “one country, two systems” framework, it is legitimate for the governments of Hong Kong and China to pursue any piece of legislation aimed at consolidating China’s national identity. However, punishing those who believe that the flag and anthem don’t represent them is an act of futility that will only drive people further away from China.
3. They must offer solutions. Carrie Lam’s biggest failure has been her inability to propose a path forward for Hong Kong. After nearly a year of political instability and economic recession, the Chief Executive’s plan for the city remains unclear.
4. They must be bold. As of today, the most unlikely solution to the conflict is also the most effective and politically powerful: China should commit to “one country, two systems” beyond the 2047 deadline or maybe even indefinitely. Unlike what many skeptics believe, this framework has brought much progress to both China and Hong Kong. The perceived inadequateness of the system is merely the result of its mistaken association with the opposition’s grievances. Although not completely unfounded, their fears have largely emerged as a result of not knowing what China has planned for Hong Kong beyond 2047. A written, legally-binding commitment on the part of Beijing to keeping the current system in place permanently would undoubtedly send a strong, positive message to the people of Hong Kong.

Western governments, media, and other foreign interests

1. They must show respect for China’s political process. As a sovereign nation, China has the right to rule over its territory however it pleases. Foreign interference would only be appropriate if there was clear, tangible evidence that China’s policies towards Hong Kong were detrimental to human rights.
2. They must steer away from misinformation. Western media outlets have spent nearly a year telling the world one side of the story. By ignoring street violence and the doxing many have suffered for speaking out against the anti-government movement, Western media outlets have whitewashed the movement’s most radical elements and deliberately constructed an image of Hong Kong that does not fully correspond to the city’s reality.
3. They must stop viewing Hong Kong as simply a tool to gain political leverage. Today, the dreams and aspirations of millions of Hongkongers are being threatened as foreign actors consider targeting the city’s economic engines in order to pressure the central government. In doing so, however, they seem to ignore the sheer size of the Chinese economy and the fact that the only victims of a foreign crackdown on the city’s economy will be the people of Hong Kong.

Hong Kong has proven to be quite resilient, but the city cannot be embroiled in a permanent state of crisis. The people of Hong Kong must band together for peace.

An Intolerable Publication

Sorry, folks. But today I stand with President Trump, and after you’ve read through this blog post I would hope that you’ll all do the same.

So, what has led me to this unusually supportive attitude towards a man who once bragged about grabbing women by the p***? Well, the answer is pretty straightforward: There IS such a thing as crossing the line when it comes to lambasting the president.

Village, a well-known political and cultural magazine based in Ireland, just released a new cover story that has the President of the United States in the crosshairs. And I mean that literally. The magazine has published a picture of the president with crosshairs placed over his left temple, accompanied by the following headline: WHY NOT. The article reads: “We have one of the worst men in the most powerful position, one where he can do damage to millions, to billions, to the planet. … So perhaps the solution is tyrannicide. As he might say himself – ‘take him out.”

This story is sure to cause a great deal of controversy. And for good reason. To suggest that assassinating the president would be an OK thing to do is not only disgraceful and deplorable, but also an enormous mistake on the part of the magazine’s editorial team.

The publication is sure to be met with immediate backlash over the piece, and it will be well-deserved. You can never win a political argument by wishing death on your opponent. It undermines your credibility and your ideas could permanently be cast aside. I expect the magazine’s editors to come out and give some sort of reasonable explanation as to why they decided to go ahead with the publication of this unfortunate cover story. Sadly, whatever their statement reads, it will be pointless. The damage has been done.

The only thing that this story will accomplish is to strengthen Trump’s voter base and their support for the president, which will cripple progressive efforts and their struggle to defeat the president’s extremist agenda.

Liberals and progressives must put aside name-calling and petty attacks on President Trump, and focus on developing new ideas that appeal to a larger population. Only then we’ll stand a greater chance of vanquishing this administration.

I’m hopeful that Village will issue an apology sooner rather than later so we can all move on from this unfortunate incident and engage in the only battle that counts: The battle of ideas.