Skip to main content
  • Sections
  • Search

Center for Strategic & International Studies

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Sign In

Topics

  • Climate Change
  • Cybersecurity and Technology
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Governance
    • Intellectual Property
    • Intelligence, Surveillance, and Privacy
    • Military Technology
    • Space
    • Technology and Innovation
  • Defense and Security
    • Counterterrorism and Homeland Security
    • Defense Budget
    • Defense Industry, Acquisition, and Innovation
    • Defense Strategy and Capabilities
    • Geopolitics and International Security
    • Long-Term Futures
    • Missile Defense
    • Space
    • Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation
  • Economics
    • Asian Economics
    • Global Economic Governance
    • Trade and International Business
  • Energy and Sustainability
    • Energy, Climate Change, and Environmental Impacts
    • Energy and Geopolitics
    • Energy Innovation
    • Energy Markets, Trends, and Outlooks
  • Global Health
    • Family Planning, Maternal and Child Health, and Immunizations
    • Multilateral Institutions
    • Health and Security
    • Infectious Disease
  • Human Rights
    • Building Sustainable and Inclusive Democracy
    • Business and Human Rights
    • Responding to Egregious Human Rights Abuses
    • Civil Society
    • Transitional Justice
    • Human Security
  • International Development
    • Food and Agriculture
    • Governance and Rule of Law
    • Humanitarian Assistance
    • Human Mobility
    • Private Sector Development
    • U.S. Development Policy

Regions

  • Africa
    • North Africa
    • Sub-Saharan Africa
  • Americas
    • Caribbean
    • North America
    • South America
  • Arctic
  • Asia
    • Afghanistan
    • Australia, New Zealand & Pacific
    • China
    • India
    • Japan
    • Korea
    • Pakistan
    • Southeast Asia
  • Europe
    • European Union
    • NATO
    • Post-Soviet Europe
    • Turkey
  • Middle East
    • The Gulf
    • Egypt and the Levant
    • North Africa
  • Russia and Eurasia
    • The South Caucasus
    • Central Asia
    • Post-Soviet Europe
    • Russia

Sections menu

  • Programs
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Analysis
    • Blogs
    • Books
    • Commentary
    • Congressional Testimony
    • Critical Questions
    • Interactive Reports
    • Journals
    • Newsletter
    • Reports
    • Transcript
  • Podcasts
  • iDeas Lab
  • Transcripts
  • Web Projects

Main menu

  • About Us
  • Support CSIS
    • Securing Our Future
Blog Post - New Perspectives on Asia
Share
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Printfriendly.com

The Limits of Internationalizing Hong Kong’s Democracy Struggle

January 19, 2022

Chun Hey Kot

Repression in Hong Kong is not slowing down. Since Beijing enacted the Hong Kong national security law in 2020, governments of Western liberal democracies have condemned human rights violations in Hong Kong, erected sanctions against select Chinese and Hong Kong officials, changed Hong Kong’s legal status to reflect its loss of autonomy, and announced diplomatic boycotts of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics. But Beijing has only tightened its grip: revamping Hong Kong’s electoral system to allow only ‘patriotic’ candidates to run for office, crushing press freedom, and suffocating civil society. More and more activists and pro-democracy figures are being put in jail.

Why has Beijing’s clampdown persisted despite international pressure? One could argue that international pressure failed to impose costs unacceptable to Beijing. On the one hand, in the last decade, Xi Jinping has made national greatness and unification a top priority. He is willing to accept a large cost margin to assert sovereignty over Hong Kong. Activists miscalculated when they wagered that Beijing would balk if Hong Kong’s international reputation was at stake. Hong Kong’s brand as an international business hub, valuable as it is, was something Beijing was prepared to lose.

On the other hand, international pressure was perhaps never sufficiently costly due to the lack of Western leverage on China. Proponents of laam chau, or a scorched-earth tactic, correctly observe that Hong Kong’s dense ties to Western countries enhance the democracy movement’s international salience. However, international attention does not directly translate into Western leverage over Hong Kong’s government. With China exerting firm control over the city, Western countries must gain leverage over China to influence political processes in Hong Kong. 

It is extremely difficult to gain and exercise leverage over China. The level of Western leverage, defined as the target government’s vulnerability to external pressure, depends on at least three factors: the target state’s raw size; the existence of competing issues on Western foreign policy agenda; and the target state’s access to political, economic, or military support from an alternative regional power.

First, the sheer size of China’s economy and its rapidly modernizing military has bolstered Chinese leaders’ confidence to shun external pressures. In fact, instead of becoming vulnerable to foreign pressure, China possesses sizable leverage over foreign countries and businesses, using the lure of its lucrative markets for economic coercion. Its size and power also mean that it can shrug off external pressure without another regional power’s help.

Moreover, China’s integration in the world economy, rather than creating Western leverage, has raised the cost of punishing China. Due to China’s central position in global finance and trade, severe economic punishment against China, such as sanctioning major Chinese banks, could inflict collateral damage to the United States. As U.S. policymakers adopt targeted sanctions and even contemplate partial decoupling, China is already turning its economy inward, attempting to insulate itself from external nodes of pressure. China will continue to depend on foreign supply of strategic goods like energy, but it is doubtful that top energy exporters, themselves with dubious human rights records, will play along with the West’s liberal agenda.

Second, competing priorities on the policy agenda complicate Western efforts to pressure China. Both the biggest emitter of carbon and producer of renewable technology, China is indispensable in global climate policy. Pragmatists perceive that beating down on China’s human rights violations will foreclose Western countries’ ability to cooperate with China on climate change. To avoid politicizing climate change, they are loath to press Beijing on ‘sensitive’ topics such as human rights.

Looking forward, despite President Biden’s efforts to center U.S. foreign policy around democracy, structural changes in the international system may further weaken Western leverage vis-a-vis authoritarian countries. After the Cold War ended, the United States, as the only remaining superpower in the world, enjoyed greater leeway to promote democracy globally. Today, the vestiges of U.S. unipolarity are slowly fading away. The United States is becoming less capable of enforcing the existing liberal world order, let alone expanding it to new places. The United States will increasingly be compelled to focus on a narrower range of national interests and competition with China, objectives that do not always align with the maximization of democracy abroad.

Between conserving the liberal world order and expanding it, there is still a large gray area for democratic gains. While it is unreasonable to advocate for ‘liberal crusades’ in Asia, the United States can support democratic activists in less costly ways. For example, the U.S. Congress should pass the Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act, which would enable Hong Kongers to apply for refugee status from outside the United States. With the shutdown of prominent pro-democracy news outlets such as StandNews and Citizen News, the U.S. government should also bolster funding and support for Cantonese media in Hong Kong, such as Radio Free Asia. Any practical or moral support for democracy activists does and will continue to matter in the long fight against authoritarianism.

With Beijing’s iron grip on Hong Kong, many Hong Kongers pin their hopes on the ‘international battlefront,’ wishing that Western democracies would pry open the ‘fortress of autocracy’ and introduce opportunities for positive political change. However, with the relative decline of U.S. power, we must re-calibrate our expectations about what the United States can and should do as the leader of the liberal order. How the United States responds to structural changes to the international system will profoundly impact the liberal world order’s perceived legitimacy and sustenance. In an increasingly self-help international environment, democracy activists in Hong Kong and other places alike are preparing for the ‘long game,’ patiently waiting for domestic and international events to open up cracks in autocratic regimes. 

Chun Hey Kot is a former intern with the Reconnecting Asia Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington D.C.

Media Queries
Contact H. Andrew Schwartz
Chief Communications Officer
Tel: 202.775.3242

Contact Paige Montfort
Media Relations Coordinator, External Relations
Tel: 202.775.3173
Related
Asia, Human Rights, Reconnecting Asia

More from this blog

Blog Post
China’s Hukou Reform in 2022: Do They Mean it this Time?
In New Perspectives on Asia
April 20, 2022
Blog Post
China's Progress Towards a Central Bank Digital Currency
In New Perspectives on Asia
April 19, 2022
Blog Post
Squeezed From Two Sides: Myanmar Garment Workers Caught Between Covid and the Coup
In New Perspectives on Asia
March 31, 2022
Blog Post
Burmese Financial Holdings and U.S.-Singapore Contention
In New Perspectives on Asia
March 29, 2022
Blog Post
How are Washington and Beijing Utilizing Industrial Policy to Bolster Domestic Semiconductor Manufacturing?
In New Perspectives on Asia
March 29, 2022
Blog Post
North Korea’s Provocative and Secret Interventions in South Korean Elections
In New Perspectives on Asia
March 7, 2022
Blog Post
Strengthening Ayushman Bharat through AI adoption
In New Perspectives on Asia
February 25, 2022
Blog Post
Avoiding the Red Card: The Challenge of Separating Sports and Politics in China
By Hannah Price
In New Perspectives on Asia
February 3, 2022

Related Content

Critical Questions
Hong Kong’s Special Status: What’s Happening and What’s Next
By William Alan Reinsch
June 15, 2020
Newsletter
RESOLVED: Japan Should Increase Pressure to Support Democracy in Hong Kong
February 26, 2021
Blog Post
No Easy Way Out for Social Media Companies Under the New Hong Kong National Security Law
By Lauren Maranto
In New Perspectives on Asia
September 16, 2020
Commentary
Hong Kong in 2022
By Michael Martin
February 2, 2022
Commentary
Options on Hong Kong: A Suggested NSC Memo
By Jude Blanchette, Victor Cha, Michael J. Green, Scott Kennedy
June 2, 2020
Critical Questions
The Biden Boycott of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics
By Victor Cha
January 18, 2022
Commentary
Trading for Influence?
May 22, 2020
Blog Post
What Does China Stand to Gain by Hosting the 2022 Winter Olympics?
In New Perspectives on Asia
January 18, 2022
Footer menu
  • Topics
  • Regions
  • Programs
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Analysis
  • Web Projects
  • Podcasts
  • iDeas Lab
  • Transcripts
  • About Us
  • Support Us
Contact CSIS
Email CSIS
Tel: 202.887.0200
Fax: 202.775.3199
Visit CSIS Headquarters
1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Media Queries
Contact H. Andrew Schwartz
Chief Communications Officer
Tel: 202.775.3242

Contact Paige Montfort
Media Relations Coordinator, External Relations
Tel: 202.775.3173

Daily Updates

Sign up to receive The Evening, a daily brief on the news, events, and people shaping the world of international affairs.

Subscribe to CSIS Newsletters

Follow CSIS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • Instagram

All content © 2022. All rights reserved.

Legal menu
  • Credits
  • Privacy Policy
  • Reprint Permissions