[At its best, this structure has empowered many people to participate and have their voices heard. Protesters say it keeps them all safe by not allowing the government to target specific leaders. Their success in halting the extradition bill, which was shelved by the territory’s chief executive, speaks to the movement’s power.]
By
Daniel Victor
 |
|
Hong
Kong’s chief executive, Carrie Lam, during an early morning news conference
on Tuesday.
Anthony Kwan/Getty Images
|
HONG
KONG — The protests in Hong
Kong, leaderless but well coordinated, took a destructive turn on Monday,
complicating what had been a mostly cohesive movement.
Scenes of protesters shattering glass to
break into the Legislative Council building, followed by demonstrators
scrawling graffiti on the walls inside and damaging furniture, caused some
residents to question some of the tactics used. But many protesters defended
the escalation by saying nothing else has worked, and that they were left with
no choice if their demands — including the full withdrawal of a despised
extradition bill — were to be met.
The resolution to the growing conflict could
affect Hong Kong’s standing as an international business hub and its status as
a foothold of democracy in China. Hong Kong is a semiautonomous Chinese
territory with its own system of government separate from the mainland, which
has mostly watched the unrest at arm’s length.
Here are the main takeaways from the recent
protests, and a look at why they took a destructive turn on Monday.
A leaderless, digital movement is called into
question
There is no single leader or group deciding
on or steering the strategy, tactics and goals of the movement. Instead,
protesters have used forums and messaging apps to decide next steps.
Anyone can suggest a course of action, and
others then vote on whether they support it. The most popular ideas rise to the
top, and then people rally to make them happen.
At its best, this structure has empowered
many people to participate and have their voices heard. Protesters say it keeps
them all safe by not allowing the government to target specific leaders. Their
success in halting the extradition bill, which was shelved by the territory’s
chief executive, speaks to the movement’s power.
But that same leaderless structure’s
weaknesses were on display on Monday. Such a system makes little distinction
between the thousands of people who marched peacefully, the scores who
vandalized the Legislative Council building, and the dozens who physically
forced a path in. It also does not allow for a forceful leader who can
discourage such violence. Though many aided those attacking the legislature by
moving supplies through the crowd, other protesters disapproved of the
destruction, driving a wedge between residents who broadly share a common
ideology.
“Not too many Hong Kong citizens are able to
differentiate between the radical protesters who barged into the Legislative
Council and the general protesters whose agenda is peaceful and rational,” said
Willy Lam, a political scientist at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Despite the lack of a clear leader,
protesters have shown extensive coordination at the demonstrations, having
planned the specifics online beforehand. Supply stations are set up to
distribute water, snacks, gloves, umbrellas and shields made of cardboard.
Volunteer first aid workers wear brightly colored vests. People form assembly lines
to pass supplies across long distances, with protesters communicating what they
need through a series of predetermined hand signals. Anyone walking in
dangerous areas without a helmet or a mask is quickly offered one.
Still, no individual can speak on behalf of
the protesters, which makes negotiations difficult, if not impossible. Mr. Lam
called the lack of a leader a potential “fatal weakness” of the movement,
allowing a small group of destructive protesters to set the tone for the entire
group.
One
major victory, but additional demands
Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s chief executive, had
plenty of political support in the territory’s pro-Beijing legislature to pass
a bill that would allow extraditions to mainland China. The legislators were
set to begin discussing the bill in early June, and intended to vote on it just
weeks later.
Instead, hundreds of thousands of people
marched through the city’s streets in protest on June 9, and three days later,
protesters blocked the entrance to the council building. As a group of
protesters tried to beak into the building, the police responded with batons,
pepper spray and tear gas to disperse tens of thousands of people.
After a June 16 protest saw the largest
turnout yet, Ms. Lam made a major concession: She postponed the bill, at least
temporarily.
It was an undeniable victory for the
protesters — but it did little to quell the unrest. Since the bill could later
be reintroduced, protesters felt they remained in danger.
The police tactics to break up the
demonstrations on June 12, including the use of more than 150 tear gas
canisters to push protesters far away from the government office, created a new
set of demands from the protesters. Now, instead of just calling for the
withdrawal of the bill and Ms. Lam’s resignation, they said they wouldn’t be
content unless there was an independent investigation of officers’ conduct.
They also wanted the release of protesters arrested on June 12, and for the
government to rescind its description of the demonstrations as a “riot,” a
designation that carries legal significance.
None of that has happened. Many analysts say
Ms. Lam is unlikely to step down, nor would Beijing accept her resignation if
she offered it. She has more wiggle room on the other demands, but has not
indicated any willingness to budge.
It sets the stage for a protracted conflict.
China
is reluctant to get too involved
Just a few minutes’ walk away from the
Legislative Council building, the People’s Liberation Army, China’s military,
has an outpost with thousands of combat-ready soldiers ready to do Beijing’s
bidding. But they have remained on the sidelines, even as the extended protests
have turned violent and pose a political threat to President Xi Jinping.
Ivan Choy, a political scientist at Chinese
University of Hong Kong, said deploying the army would be a last resort and a
worst-case scenario for Mr. Xi. It would be widely seen as China reneging on
the autonomy Beijing promised when Britain handed Hong Kong back to China in
1997.
“If the P.L.A. came out last night, it would
seriously undermine confidence in ‘one country, two systems’ of the Hong Kong
people and also the international community,” Mr. Choy said on Tuesday.
Mr. Xi still prefers to let Hong Kong
officials handle the situation, he said. Hong Kong’s successful self-governance
is important for China’s international image, and its failure would be a major
black eye for the president.
But some in the Chinese government could use
Monday’s escalation to justify tightening Hong Kong policies. They could also
argue against making the concessions protesters seek, painting them as radicals
who won’t be satisfied.
Businesses
are watching, but haven’t flinched
The international business community that has
made Hong Kong such a crucial economic center did not bat an eye at Monday’s
protests. Hong Kong’s stock market was up on Tuesday, indicating little concern
that the protests have crossed a worrisome red line.
A collapse of Hong Kong’s autonomy — or a
lack of confidence that law and order could be upheld — would cause businesses
to scramble for a new home in Asia. Several business groups spoke out against
the extradition bill, while more expressed concern privately.
Most have had little to say about the
protests. But the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong condemned the
protesters’ behavior in a statement on Tuesday.
“We believe the violent protests of recent
days do not reflect how the majority of people in this dynamic and advanced
economy would choose to be heard,” it said. “We sincerely hope that Hong Kong
will find ways for communication and collaboration between the government and
the public in order to bring out the best of what Hong Kong has to offer as a
premier business and financial hub.”
Alexandra Stevenson contributed reporting.
