Length: 699 Words Reading Time: 3 Minutes
My apologies to one and all for not commenting earlier on Ms. Noonan’s piece. Other writing priorities leapfrogged her on my list of posts to write. She wrote her opinion piece in the June 15/16 edition of the Wall Street Journal.
Most of the time, I am disappointed in the position that Peggy Noonan takes regarding a particular topic or issue. In most cases, she and I are on opposite sides of the fence, and I sometimes wonder why this is so. She worked for Presidents Reagan and Bush and has written several books I have in my library. I have read two of them. Ostensibly, she is a conservative with a little c, but perhaps she has shifted her position to become a liberal of sorts.
She is an elegant stylist and a bit of a wordsmith, but it seems to me that her understanding of the world and her sense of history, at present, are somewhat underdeveloped. Perhaps she needs to get out more and get away from the Eastern Seaboard and the comfort of living in NYC and see the real world up close and personal. No one, not even Niall Ferguson or Patrick Buchanan, can keep the whole world and its happenings in proper perspective, but a little homework by her would not go amiss.
In her piece, she took the United Kingdom to task, but her real focus was Mr. Boris Johnson, who is now the Prime Minister of the UK. Brexit is the context of her column, and the failure of the UK to move expeditiously on this issue occupied the more significant part of her column. I agree that the implementation of Brexit should have happened as planned. However, treating the United Kingdom as a hysterical woman who needs slapping to bring her to her senses is most inappropriate, and even more so for China. We can take some license with the United Kingdom because of the special relationship, but not with China. China requires a much more nuanced approach, and I am surprised that Ms. Noonan does not see that. In the world of diplomacy, one size does not fit all.
I lived in Taiwan for 15 months in 1966 and 1967 when I was an Ensign in the Civil Engineer Corps, and I have visited Hong Kong about 75 times. It is my favorite city in the world. I traveled twice to China in 1980 and 1988. I speak some Mandarin, and I have had business dealings in Taiwan and Hong Kong. To understand China and the complex relationships among China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong is the work of a lifetime. I am astonished by the armchair diplomats who pretend to expertise in subjects about which they know very little. I have some experience in that part of the world, but my understanding is minuscule at best.
Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China are all Chinese, but each is unique in many ways. The Hong Kong Chinese are very business-minded and energetic, and the Taiwanese are not far behind. China is changing rapidly, but they will never catch up to Hong Kong unless they make many critical structural changes. The most important of which is establishing personal freedom for its citizens as a foundation for moving China into the 21st Century. Is this realistic on my part? Perhaps under Deng Xiaoping, it would have happened, but not under Xi Jinping.
It is somewhat telling that the United Kingdom, in the person of Margaret Thatcher, was blindsided by Deng Xiaoping when the return of the New Territories in 1997 came up in discussion. Hong Kong was supposed to remain under British rule, but Deng wanted back the New Territories, Kowloon, and Hong Kong Island. Margaret Thatcher was no slouch in tough diplomacy. However, Deng held the winning hand because, with the return of the New Territories in 1997, Kowloon and Hong Kong Island were at the mercy of the mainland.
Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister of Singapore, could have brokered a better outcome by convincing Deng and Thatcher that Hong Kong should become an international city. That would have been statecraft of the highest order.