As the barricades and tent cities of Hong Kong's bold protest movement face what could be a final onslaught from police, it is worth reflecting on what these determined pro-democracy activists have taught the world.
Of course, the movement will not go quietly. But even before police clashed violently with protesters on the streets of Mong Kok, the conversation had already shifted from the lofty political goals of universal suffrage to businesses and residents moaning about blockades, and a discussion of how the movement can pursue its altruistic goals without further inconveniencing Hong Kongers.
First and foremost, the movement has reminded everyone that there is an insatiable democratic spirit in China with a long history, particularly among students. There were daily comparisons to the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy protests in 1989, as well as references to the student-led nationalist May 4 movement of 1919.
The pro-democracy protesters' resilience, when faced with everything from dismissive calls to go home to violence from pro-Beijing thugs, helped rekindle discussions about what gradual political reform in China might look like – even if it's not what protesters want.
At the same time, the protests served as a reminder of Hong Kong's precarious status, post-handover. The 1984 agreement between Britain and China never explicitly guaranteed full-blown, Western-style democracy, but it did promise Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy in the one country, two systems model. Beijing's insistence that candidates running in 2017 be vetted and pre-approved looks more like one system to many of the protesters – and tastes a lot like betrayal. Of course, many older business people in Hong Kong have benefited from China's rise; to them, the London-appointed British governors don't seem so distant, and the status quo looks profitable. But to many born in the twilight of British rule – one protest leader Joshua Wong is 18 and was born in 1996 – the type of political system being discussed by their elders and Beijing officials seems alien to everything they believe. Hong Kongers, and students, have resisted Beijing's heavy hand before. This false democracy of rubber-stamped candidates resembles Iran. Why shouldn't protesters fight now? Why should they give in?
The muted support for protesters' democratic aspirations – including from Canada – also highlighted just how crucial China has become to the international system. In 1989, China was still relatively unimportant to international trade, and condemnations flowed thickly after the Tiananmen massacre. Now, China is crucial to the global economy, and foreign ministers and diplomats need to mind their tongues.
But the protests also showed China's leaders are still as brittle and nonsensical about criticism as ever – part of a long history of overreaction that includes jailing harmless critics and inflaming tensions with Tibetans and Uyghurs. This week, a group of British MPs cancelled a China visit because the Chinese embassy in London refused to grant a visa to Conservative MP Richard Graham, who chairs the U.K. parliament's all-party China group.
The reason? The former Beijing-based diplomat had voiced nuanced support for Hong Kong protesters and reiterated MPs' duty, after the Sino-British joint declaration of 1984, to protect freedoms in Hong Kong until 2047. "If we allow any of those freedoms to be curtailed and if we say nothing about any dilution of Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy, whether deliberate or inadvertent, we risk colluding in Hong Kong's gradual – not immediate – decline," he said, treading carefully. But it was still too much. China likes to remind everyone to not meddle in its "internal affairs," but here China was using its own "internal affairs" to bludgeon democratic debate outside its borders.
The protests also, again, highlighted that China has not kept its word on Hong Kong. In 1993, Lu Ping, then China's top official on Hong Kong, told the People's Daily: "How Hong Kong develops its democracy in the future is completely within the sphere of the autonomy of Hong Kong." That doesn't seem to be the case today – and wasn't in 2004, when China said it could veto Hong Kong reforms – and it raises questions for the Taiwanese, as well as others in Southeast Asia, where there are maritime boundary disputes.
Negotiations with protesters are likely to drag on. But even if the Occupy Central protesters left tomorrow, they will still have achieved what other Occupy movements did before them – kickstart crucial discussions that need to be had.
Iain Marlow is the Vancouver-based Asia Pacific correspondent for The Globe and Mail.