The speeches made by Deng Xiaoping -- the chief architect of “one country, two systems -- about the policy in the 1980s are the most authoritative concerning its strategic goals and core principles. To comprehensively and accurately understand it, we must appreciate the principles entailed. It’s a pity political forces with sinister motives have constantly distorted the concept’s interpretation and accused China of failing to faithfully implement it in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
This year marks the 120th anniversary of Deng’s birth. Reviewing his authoritative exposition of “one country, two systems” to correct misinterpretations and restore correct understanding is essential. Deng Xiaoping on the Hong Kong Issue, published by Hong Kong Joint Publishing Co in 1993, contains a collection of essential speeches by the late leader on the policy’s strategic goals, principles and core measures. His speeches that I quote below are from various chapters in the book.
First,“one country, two systems’ is primarily a policy prioritizing national interests. Its strategic goal is to achieve national reunification and allow Hong Kong to continue playing a role in the country’s socialist modernization after returning to the motherland. It’s not the “Hong Kong first” policy often trumpeted by internal and external opposition forces that falsely claim Hong Kong’s interests are put upfront.
The system is the best way to achieve peaceful national reunification. Deng explained: “One country, two systems’ was based on China’s reality. China faces a Hong Kong question and a Taiwan question. There are only two ways to solve the problems. One is negotiation and the other is force. To solve the problem [of Hong Kong] through peaceful negotiation, the solution must be acceptable to all parties, namely, China, the United Kingdom and the residents of Hong Kong. Which solution is acceptable to Hong Kong? Regarding Hong Kong, using socialism to change Hong Kong is unacceptable to all parties. We, therefore, come up with ‘one country, two systems’” He further noted that “to use peaceful means to solve the Hong Kong issue, we must consider the actual situation in Hong Kong, China’s actual situation and the actual situation in the UK. The three parties must accept our solution to the problem. If we use socialism to unify, we cannot get all parties to agree, and it will lead to chaos”.
Regarding the issue of “one country, two systems” and its relationship to the nation’s socialist modernization, Deng emphasized that “China’s mainstay must be socialism, but certain areas in the country are allowed to implement the capitalist system, such as Hong Kong and Taiwan.” “Socialism is a huge mainstay. Socialism is socialism in an area with a population of one billion. This is the premise. Under this premise, we can allow capitalism to be implemented in tiny areas and on a small scale, allowing capitalism to exist on a small scale is more conducive to developing our socialist economy. If we have to implement an open policy in this century, then China will need to implement an open policy in the first 50 years of the next century. We cannot do without this policy to get close to the level of developed countries. Maintaining Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability is in China’s vital interests.”
Second, Beijing promises to maintain Hong Kong’s original capitalist system and way of life unchanged for 50 years. The commitment to “no change for 50 years” is crucial to enhancing the confidence of Hong Kong residents and the international community in the city’s future. “No change for 50 years” also allows the UK and other Western countries, especially the United States, to believe that their interests in Hong Kong will be adequately cared for over a long time. Of course,“no change for 50 years” doesn't mean nothing can be changed from 1997 to 2047, but only that fundamental or drastic changes should not occur in Hong Kong.
ALSO READ: Deng anniversary: Xi emphasizes socialism with Chinese characteristics
Opposition forces inside and outside Hong Kong have demanded from time to time to fundamentally change Hong Kong’s political system. By doing so, they ignore the importance of the Chinese government keeping its commitments, which can easily lead to injustice for China and the HKSAR.
Deng solemnly told Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s then-prime minister: “People are worried about whether China can consistently implement this agreement [the Sino-British Joint Declaration] after signing it. We must tell your Excellency and the British friends here and tell people worldwide: China always keeps its promise.” He also pledged: “We said in the agreement that we will not change for 50 years, which means that our generation will not change, and the next generation will not.” Of course, Deng did not rule out the possibility of some changes. However, there should not be changes that would essentially change ‘one country, two systems’. Besides, changes are not always bad. Some changes are good. The question is what to change. If there’s something to change, it must be for the better and more conducive to the prosperity and development of Hong Kong. It must not harm the interests of the people of Hong Kong. Everyone would welcome this kind of change. If someone says nothing will change, don’t believe him. We can’t say everything under Hong Kong’s capitalist system is perfect. Advanced capitalist countries also have advantages and disadvantages if compared with each other. Isn’t change also a chance to lead Hong Kong in a healthier direction? Hong Kong’s people will welcome such changes and demand changes. I’m certain about it.”
Third, a “high degree of autonomy” is not the “highest degree of autonomy”, let alone “complete autonomy”. Under “one country, two systems”, the central government retains certain powers. The purpose is to enable the central government to cope with Hong Kong issues when necessary, safeguard national security and interests, and ensure the successful implementation of the policy. Opposition forces inside and outside the SAR always want to turn the city into an “independent political entity” and some people even want to pursue “Hong Kong independence”. They don’t recognize the power enjoyed by the central government under “one country, two systems”, often challenge the central government’s powers and are against the central government exercising its legitimate powers. This is not allowed under “one country, two systems”.
Deng had sternly warned: “There’s another issue that must be clarified – don’t think that Hong Kong’s affairs are all managed by Hong Kong residents and that the central government is irrelevant. This is impractical. The central authorities neither interfere in the SAR’s specific affairs nor need to. However, could detrimental incidents that harm the fundamental interests of the country occur in the SAR? If so, should Beijing intervene? Could incidents harming Hong Kong’s fundamental interests occur? Can one assume there’ll be no disturbances or destructive forces in Hong Kong? I see no basis for such self-reassurance. If the central government relinquishes all powers, disorder that damages Hong Kong’s interests may arise. Thus, maintaining certain powers of the central government benefits Hong Kong. You can think about it calmly. Will there be problems in Hong Kong that cannot be solved without Beijing acting? Some things will be difficult to solve without the central government’s action.”
Fourth, under “one country, two systems”, Hong Kong residents must shoulder the responsibility of safeguarding national security. Otherwise, the central government will take action. Maintaining the Communist Party of China’s leadership and the mainland’s socialist system is the top priority in safeguarding national security. Deng unequivocally declared: “The central government’s policy is not to harm the interests of Hong Kong, and we hope nothing will happen in Hong Kong that harms the national interests and the interests of Hong Kong. What if there is? So, I ask you (members of the Basic Law Drafting Committee of the Hong Kong SAR) to ponder. These aspects must be considered. For example, after 1997, when some people in Hong Kong scold the CPC and China, we still allow them to do so. However, if they take action to transform Hong Kong into a base against the mainland under the guise of ‘democracy’, what should we do? Then, we must intervene. The Hong Kong administrative agencies must intervene first, and it does not necessarily require the mainland’s garrison to intervene. But it must intervene!” Hong Kong’s internal and external opposition forces deny that the people of Hong Kong are responsible for safeguarding national security, so they demonize Article 23 of the Basic Law as an “evil law”. Deng did foresee external forces interfering in Hong Kong affairs after the handover. Still, he might not have imagined that “Hong Kong independence” and other separatist advocacy and actions would blatantly appear in Hong Kong. However, any behavior that endangers national security will not be tolerated and will force the central government to act.
ALSO READ: Deng Xiaoping’s legacy on reform is just as relevant today
Fifth, implementing the principle of “patriots administering Hong Kong” is the prerequisite for realizing “one country, two systems”, “Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong” and a high degree of autonomy. Otherwise, Hong Kong will become a place that confronts the country and the central government, and there’ll be no assurance of the successful implementation of “one country, two systems”. Deng had clarified: “There’re boundaries and standards for ‘Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong’. Hong Kong people must govern Hong Kong with patriots as the main body. The standard for a patriot is to respect one’s nation, sincerely support the motherland’s resumption of sovereignty over Hong Kong, and not harm Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability. As long as these conditions are met, no matter whether they believe in capitalism, feudalism or even slavery, they are patriots. We do not require them to agree with China’s socialist system. We only require them to love the motherland and love Hong Kong.” Since “Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong” means “patriots administering Hong Kong”, those who do not meet the qualifications of patriots are not qualified to govern Hong Kong. Furthermore, to realize “patriots administering Hong Kong”, the central government has the responsibility and the need to strengthen and support patriotic forces, including supporting them in various elections without violating the laws of Hong Kong. Therefore, it’s unfair for opposition forces to accuse the central government of interfering in Hong Kong affairs and undermining its high degree of autonomy and “Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong” on this ground.
Sixth, Hong Kong’s electoral system must serve the strategic goal of “one country, two systems”. In other words, Hong Kong’s democratic development must not have consequences detrimental to national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity; it must not lead to non-patriots governing Hong Kong; and must not undermine the principle of an “executive-led” government. Deng argued: “Hong Kong’s political system cannot be completely Westernized or copied from the West. Hong Kong is not practicing the British or American systems now. Suppose Hong Kong completely copies the Western system, such as the separation of powers, the British and American parliamentary system, and uses it to judge whether it’s democratic, is popular election necessarily beneficial to Hong Kong? For example, I’ve said that, in the future, Hong Kong will certainly be managed by the people of Hong Kong. Is it possible to elect these people through universal suffrage? We say the people who manage Hong Kong affairs should be people who love the motherland and love Hong Kong. Can universal suffrage get such people elected? Recently, Hong Kong Governor David Wilson said we should proceed step by step. I think this view is more practical. Even if we implement universal suffrage, there must be a gradual transition.”
The views of the opposition forces are quite the opposite. They regard universal suffrage as the highest or even the only goal to be achieved under “one country, two systems”. They refuse to consider the consequences of universal suffrage. Precisely because they strived to obtain the governing power of the HKSAR through universal suffrage, they used the pretext of seeking universal suffrage to launch their continuous political struggles after the handover.
In the process of the central government’s implementation of “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong, considering the changes in the situation in the HKSAR, the country and the world, the central government must also make corresponding adjustments to its approaches to Hong Kong. However, the strategic goals and core principles set by Deng are still the cornerstone of “one country, two systems” and continue to have significant theoretical and practical guiding significance.
READ MORE: China makes new progress on path set by Deng
For the central government and the HKSAR, widely publicizing Deng’s discourse on “one country, two systems” will help correct any misunderstandings in Hong Kong and the international community.
The author is a professor emeritus of sociology, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and a consultant for the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
