The Global China Connection (GCC) hosted a live debate between members of the Woodrow Wilson Debate Council Wednesday evening, focusing on the effects of the ongoing “Occupy Central” campaign in Hong Kong. The movement has been organized around controversy surrounding the definition of universal suffrage.
Associate Professor of Sociology Joel Andreas moderated the debate and discussed the recent protests.
According to the agreements established during Hong Kong’s re-unification in 1997, the Chinese Communist Party is tasked with moving toward universal suffrage by 2017. A bill adopted by Beijing in September of 2014 would grant general elections to Hong Kong only after the candidates for the election are vetted by a pro-Beijing panel.
Protesters have argued that the bill takes a step backward from China’s original promise of universal suffrage while the Chinese Communist Party has firmly opposed any negotiation about the voting process. The current situation has left protesters and Beijing at an impasse.
According to Andreas, following Hong Kong’s return to China in 1997, the city has been run under the “one country, two systems” ideology, wherein Hong Kong has been granted localized sovereignty over judicial and legislative issues. However, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) still wields ultimate authority and jurisdiction over the city.
The debate consisted of two sides, one representing the protesters and the other the CCP.
The first team of speakers — representing the protesters — argued that the “one country, two systems” ideology naturally grants Hong Kong the right to choose its own chief executive. The pro-democracy team asserted that prolonged protests damage both Hong Kong and China’s financial stability. The team then transitioned to arguing that the CCP would still maintain effective control, as the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) would still be present in Hong Kong’s Causeway Bay, and that Hong Kong would remain a part of China. The team effectively concluded that conceding to the protestors’ demands remains the only way for China to quickly restore both Hong Kong’s natural rights and the status quo.
The second team of speakers, representing the CCP, claimed that democracy for Hong Kong would lead to an irreversible ideological split between Hong Kong and China. The pro-central government debate team argued that Hong Kong fundamentally opposes meddling by the CCP and that Hong Kong cannot be allowed to drift away from China. According to the team, conceding to the protestors would lead to protests elsewhere in China, weakening China’s central government and providing an “Achilles’ heel” to the CCP. The CCP team argued that the position taken by Hong Kong protesters threatens China’s stability and thus remains completely unacceptable to China’s need to protect the status quo.
Attendees found the debate particularly informative from more than just a historical perspective.
“I think the presentation was very informative,” freshman Kevin Kwok said. “Both sides presented viewpoints and ideas I hadn’t thought about before, and they [both] expressed their arguments clearly and persuasively. The teams’ public speaking skills were also good.”
Through this event and others in the future, the GCC aims to expand its role and its notoriety on campus.
“Our goal for GCC this year is to have a bigger presence on campus, to reach out to more people,” President of GCC Anson Shen said. “Our central goal is to raise awareness about U.S.-China relations and to overall [improve communication] about political issues, social issues and economic issues.”
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The News-Letter.