A BBC television news crew in Norway last week reported that “Occupy Central” was conceived two years ago. It took more than a year to prepare, including training personnel and building a media strategy. BBC Two’s Newsnight crew interviewed a number of participants at the annual Oslo Freedom Forum (OFF) in the Norwegian capital. It learned some secrets about the ongoing illegal campaign in Hong Kong straight “from the horse’s mouth”.
According to “activists” at OFF, the objective of “Occupy Central” is to use “non-violent” protest as a “weapon of mass destruction” to challenge the Chinese government. The leaders include leading Western anti-China groups, “color revolution” gurus and “think tanks” — whose members include former Chinese student movement leaders such as Yang Jianli.
The illegal campaign was carried out with precision from the beginning. To do this, the instigators of “Occupy” selected up to 1,000 candidates to receive special training as “squad leaders” in police confrontation; they also practiced strategies for reacting to arrest and protecting themselves from water cannon. Logistics was a key part of the operation as well. The brains behind the campaign ensured supplies, such as water and food, would be abundant. These preparations were well executed during the campaign. This is further proof that “Occupy Central” was designed to be a “color revolution”. In fact, Beijing had been alerted about these plans long before they were set in motion. Sources in Hong Kong have revealed that certain interest groups in the United States and Britain were convinced in the late 1980s that returning Hong Kong to China would be a big mistake. They could not live with the idea that Hong Kong would be lost. So they conspired to “take it back”.
Their agenda to achieve this included the political reforms launched by Chris Patten, the last governor, in the 1990s before the handover; the post-handover “education reform controversy” of 2000; the demands in 2003 for universal suffrage for the election of both the Chief Executive (CE) and Legislative Council in 2007; the mass protests against the national security legislation (Article 23 of the Basic Law) in 2003. More recently their actions included the “anti-national education campaign”. All these incidents were carefully planned to plunge Hong Kong into a “color revolution”.
Everything the “occupiers” have done is evidence of this. This also includes demanding CE Leung Chun-ying’s resignation, challenging the constitutional authority of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC), endangering the rule of law with violent confrontations against police and resisting court injunctions to end their illegal occupation.
Why then, do the organizers of “Occupy” — the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) and the three initiators of the illegal movement — insist it is not a “color revolution”? Their main reasons are fear of the negative connotations associated with the word “revolution” in Hong Kong and the desire to have an “exit” strategy. The fact that most participants do not want a “color revolution” is another reason. The people participating in “Occupy” originate from diverse backgrounds. They have different goals. Some joined because they had been brainwashed by Western ideas. They were even willing to serve Western interests at the expense of the Hong Kong society. The puppet masters pulling the strings are the Western powers, who stand to profit from the city’s demise, along with their Hong Kong-based cronies.
This is why the HKFS is constantly changing its stance. It has demanded that Leung Chun-ying step down and the NPCSC withdraw its decision on the method for selecting candidates to stand for CE election by universal suffrage in 2017. It has demanded pre-conditions before holding talks with the SAR government. Then there is the example of leadership confusion over an “electronic referendum” scheduled for Oct 26-27. It was canceled at the last minute due to “internal disagreements”. This shows how divided the illegal movement has become. Its leaders are a bunch of crooks.
Any attempt to hinder China’s peaceful development by hurting Hong Kong with “color revolution” will fail. No one can convince enough people in Hong Kong to sacrifice their livelihoods for the benefit of those sponsoring this illicit campaign. The central government has emerged victoriously from far worse situations. It certainly cannot be shaken by an “umbrella revolution”. The SAR government will also prove more resilient than its adversaries realize.
The author is a veteran journalist based in Hong Kong.
