Power but no Incentive

As discussed in last week’s post, international help will be crucial in preserving Hong Kong’s democracy. The US in particular, has been following the events of Hong Kong closely. So, what is the US’s current stance, and what may change it in favor of or against the democratic activists of Hong Kong?

The US is in an awkward position at the moment. Historically, the US is committed to democracy around the globe, and it’s presence in Asia is enormous. The US has 26,000 troops in Korea, and thousands more in Japan, Okinawa, and the Philippines. It’s largest fleet, the 7th fleet, is docked in Yokosuka, Japan, boasting an impressive 70 ships, 300 aircrafts, and 40,000 personnel. Yet intervention in Hong Kong is not an option. China is the US’s largest trade partner, and with Russia intervening in Europe and the Middle East, the US needs China at its side to prevent another China-Russia alliance. As such, as the Hong Kong protests exploded in 2014, the US State Department offered little more than rhetorical support to the activists.

Yet could the US stance change? Perhaps. If protests pick up again in 2016 and China is forced to send in the People’s Liberation Army for another Tiananmen style crackdown, it is likely that the US and allies will sanction China. Should protests turn ugly and the democratic activists injure police officers, (as they did in the January 2016 fishball protests), the US could distance itself from the conflict completely. As the 2017 elections draw near, the degree of US help activists receive depends solely on themselves.

At the end of the day, the US has the power to intervene in Hong Kong, but not the incentive. Its actions depends on the actions of the Chinese Communist Party, and, indirectly, the actions of the protesters. This is an exciting time in East Asia: what happens over the next year and half will not only determine the fate of the last Chinese democracy, but also US influence in the region for years to come.