【國際關係進階：學術期刊】國際視角下的六七暴動研究特刊序章 (Patreon)

這是我有份參與編輯委員會的學術期刊《East Asia》剛出版的Special Issue，關於香港六七暴動的國際視角，我們是這一期的Editors，這是我和陳偉信博士的Introduction。

A New Wine or an Old Wine with New Wineskin: Regional and International Dimensions of 1967 Riots—a Special Issue

Abstract

This article serves as an introduction of the Special Issue: Regional and International Dimensions of 1967 Riots. The introduction will first outline the existing research on the 1967 Riots, arguably one of the most critical events impacting colonial governance and Hong Kong society. After that, the introduction would outline major literature on the regional and international dimension of a social movement, before highlighting the papers involved in the special issue as the concluding section of this introduction.

Hong Kong, a city that was not renowned for its political activism, was put into the spotlight of both media and academia since 2019. The massive protests, first against the proposed extradition bill, later against police violence and local governance, attracted not only numerous written reports and live broadcasts from traditional media but also went viral on social media platforms in discussing the tactics and strategies deployed during the demonstrations. The so-called “Hong Kong model” of social movement had inspired, if not exported, to the rest of the world, such as the independence protests in Catalunya, the anti-government protests in Chile, or even protests in some Chinese provinces [27].

On the other hand, unlike the Umbrella Movement in 2014, which the pan- democratic politicians were reluctant to associate the occupying movement with any potential foreign intervention, the internationalisation of the anti-extradition bill move- ment was one of the battlefronts that both local citizens and political activists opted for [13]. The emerging lobbyist networks from Washington to London and Strasbourg tried to lobby for “direct foreign interventions” such as the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, or a European/UK version of the Global Magnitsky Act, to impose sanctions against local government officials. Internationalising local social movements was no longer a taboo in the Hong Kong community, but the survival tactic of last resort.

Compared to the growing interest in society, there was little literature on the international dimension of the social movements in Hong Kong. [4, 29, 30]. This special issue, which was a collection of the papers presented in a symposium titled “Hong Kong 1967: Global Perspectives”, aimed to discuss the regional and interna- tional dimensions of the 1967 Riots and its implications to the surrounding cities. Before introducing various papers in the special issue, this introduction would first outline the existing research on the 1967 Riots, arguably one of the most critical events impacting colonial governance and Hong Kong society. After that, the introduction would outline significant literature on the regional and international dimension of a social movement, before highlighting the papers involved in the special issue as the concluding section of this introduction.

Revisiting 1967 Riots After 50+ Years: Is There Still Room to Explore?

Although the political culture of Hong Kong was once associated with terms like “political indifference” or “political apathy”, Hong Kong society was not new to massive social movements before the 1967 Riots [9–12]. Before the 1967 Riots, there were already large-scale social movements in Hong Kong, such as the 1925–1926 Canton-Hong Kong labour strike, the 1956 pro-Kuomintang riots, and the 1966 Kowloon Disturbances. The 1967 Riots, however, was significant in both figures and impact. A strike originated in an artificial flower factory had resulted in a 7-month riot, causing 51 deaths, 848 injuries and nearly 4500 arrests for participation in the riots in whatever means [29, 30]. The 1967 Riots was also the “watershed” in British colonial governance and the socio-political culture in Hong Kong. The publication of the Commission of Inquiry Report was accompanied with a firm commitment to progres- sive public service reforms by the colonial government, such as the introduction of the City District Officer scheme in 1968, the formalisation of Chinese as an official language in Hong Kong in 1971, and the improvement of labour conditions such as the reduction of working hours [20–22]. Culturally, the colonial government had actively sponsored de-nationalisation programmes such as the Hong Kong Festival, Cleaning Hong Kong Campaign, and the status of Hong Kong Permanent Resident. As a result, a sense of belonging, if not a localist identity, was bred in Hong Kong society [3, 6, 24, 26]. Socially, the 1967 riots broke the traditional state-society relations between the colonial government and Chinese civil society. The progressive reforms introduced by the colonial government created a new opportunity structure for localised social movements, fuelled with teenagers’ and intellectuals’ passion for building a strong Hong Kong identity and relieving grassroots’ grievances [14–16, 26]. All in all, the usual reading on 1967 Riots was that it was a social movement, despite visible involvements from the Chinese Communist Party that emerged from poor local social conditions and was only relevant to Hong Kong society [14, 26]. Nevertheless, as John Cooper put it, the poor conditions could never justify the “reign of terror” in 1967, and the international dimension was also neglected [4].

There were some works, however, excluded from the above criticisms. For example, local historian Mark Chi-Kwan had put the 1967 Riots into the context of difficult Sino-British relations in the “Long 1970s” [17]. From his study on released government archives and documents, Mark revealed that on the one hand, the riots proved that Hong Kong’s eventual future would be at Beijing’s discretion. On the other hand, it also pushed London to opt for a better opportunity to negotiate the return of Hong Kong [17]. The subsequent reform in Hong Kong during the 1970s was, therefore, a diplomatic strategy to create a better position to influence Chinese policy towards Hong Kong after the handover of sovereignty [17]. Focusing on the British economic history and its economic relations with China, Valeria Zanier and Roberto Peruzzi concluded that 1967 was a “turning point in Hong Kong-British-PRC Economic Relations”. The 1967 Riots had contributed to the tension among the British government, the Bank of England and the British community in Hong Kong in the devaluation of British Pound Sterling and exchange rate, and the management of Hong Kong reserves [31]. Relying on first-hand resources and content analysis of the Times’ reports, Cheung and Zhou discovered respectively how the pro-Beijing activists and pro-British media interacted and shaped Beijing’s and British interests in Hong Kong [2, 32]. Perhaps the most comprehensive study on the 1967 Riots, from both the domestic front and the diplo- matic front, was an edited book produced by Robert Bickers and Ray Yep in the last decade [30]. By referring to variable sources from overseas scholars and Chinese Communist Party members, the edited book included chapters focused on British- Hong Kong relations and the American factors in formulating responses to the 1967 Riots, British official considerations to the cases of Hong Kong and Macau, the policing legacies and exchange between Hong Kong and London, etc. [1, 22, 28, 30].

Regional and International Dimension of the 1967 Riots: What Does it Mean?

Nonetheless, given their focus on contextualising the 1967 Riots in the frame of local developments under the Cold War context, the edited work from Bickers and Yep did not include a broader discussion on the regional and international dimensions other than the American factors and the London concerns. Before the discussion of the papers in the issue, this introduction wishes to outline the possible regional and international interactions between the 1967 Riots, which the British government perceived it as a domestic event, and international politics, which remained essentially government- centric, if not state-centric.

The first type of interactions focuses on the impact of global events on the mobilisation structure, which international political events provided a valuable oppor- tunity structure and issue network for contentious politics. In summarising the relation- ship between the social movement and global politics, Smith, Pagnucco, and Chatfield suggested that the success of social movements depended on a “variety of opportunity structures” from national political structures to international and transnational political structures. Various social movements could be linked up by a distinctive global issue or pushed for a common agenda within their domestic political, social and economic environment [23]. Specifically, Tarrow identified four main sources of interactions between social movements and international politics: (1) the framing of the causes of social movement globally and the seek for global support; (2) coalition building between transnational and national groups at major international events or targeting major international organisations; (3) the triumph of major transnational activisms against national actors; and (4) the promotion of institutional and organisational reform of international organisations and treaty formation [25]. The 1967 Riots, in this case, was a social movement fuelled with anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism. On the other hand, the responses from London, Washington, and Hong Kong was fuelled with anti- communism.

The second type of interactions focuses on the strategic values of the social movements in international politics, which social movements provided valuable policy windows and national leverage for foreign policy objectives [23]. This position was first put through the influential studies conducted respectively by Keohane and Nye and by Feld [5, 8]. Both domestic and transnational social movements have become more significant and relevant to international political processes. Local resistance or global advocacy networks could either pressure both domestic and foreign national leaders on their policy choice or shape policy preference from within to impact the two-level international negotiation [7, 18, 19]. National actors could also take advantage of the social movement to promote their diplomatic agenda, or actively include it in their foreign policies. Putting into the context of the 1967 Riots, Yep’s paper on the domestic and diplomatic fronts of the colonial governor, or Bickers’ paper on British officers’thinking during the 1967 Riots could be two illustrative examples [1, 28].

Summary of the Papers in this Special Issue

With the interactions mentioned above, this special issue consisted of four papers which extended our discussion on the regional and international dimension of the 1967 Riots. The article from Fung and Fong focused on the relationship between the 1967 Riots and the international autonomy of colonial Hong Kong. While the citizens in Hong Kong took it for granted, Fung and Fong argued that such degree of freedom was part of Britain’s bitter choice in maintaining business confidence of Hong Kong after 1967 and relieving the geopolitical pressure exerted by Beijing. As mentioned in the last section, the 1967 Riots was analysed under the context of the Cold War and Sino-British, and to a lesser extent, Sino-American relations.

While the above contribution focused on how the 1967 Riots was utilised by state actors to fulfil their national and international agendas, contributions from Chou and Horiuchi took a comparative approach in studying the regional and international dimensions of the 1967 Riots. Chou’s paper focused on the impact of the anti- imperialist riots in Portuguese Macau on PRC-Portugal-ROC relations. While the success of the “12-3 Incident” was a reason behind the 1967 Riots, Chou’s contribution focused on how the anti-colonialism riots shaped Macau’s relations with other Chinese communities like Taiwan and Hong Kong, as well as Sino-Portuguese relations. Horiuchi’s contribution perhaps was the least common perspective in studying the 1967 Riots by introducing a comparative study on the 1967 Riots and the 1959-60 Anti-Security Treaty Movement in Japan. Through a comparison of the two movements in six perspectives, Horiuchi’s paper concluded that the difference in popular support was the key to success (or failure) in revolutionary movements in East Asia, especially during the period of Cold War, which was characterised by an intense ideological confrontation and mobilisation. Last but not least, Shen’s paper offered a perspective on the role of the Soviet Union in shaping British rationales in handling the 1967 Riots and the aftermath. By revealing the mentality of the British officials and the rioters, Shen’s work filled the existing research vacuum on British-Soviet-Hong Kong relations during the turbulent period from the late 1960s to early 1970s, when the Cold War was at its peak.

---

Acknowledgement 

This special issue was a collection of papers presented in “Hong Kong 1967: Global Perspectives”, a symposium jointly organised by International Affairs Research Centre and the Hong Kong International Relations Research Association, on 11 December 2017. The editors would like to take this opportunity to express their sincere gratitude to all speakers in the symposium, and the kind support from the University Service Centre, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and the kind sponsorship from the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies and Mr Raymond Young in organising the symposium. Last but not least, the editors would like to thank Mr Kendrick Yeung, Mr Marco Kwan, Mr Eugene Lo, and Ms Candice Chau for their support in the symposium and the coordination of this special issue.

Funding Information 

The authors would like to acknowledge the sponsorship from the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies and Mr Raymond Young in supporting the organisation of the symposium.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest Prof. Simon Shen’s work is partially funded by the Glocal Learning Offices (GLOs) in which he is the founder of the company. He is also the President of the Hong Kong International Relations Research Association. He was serving as the Director of the International Affairs Research Centre when the symposium was organised in 2017, under his capacity as an Associate Professor, Faculty of Social Science, the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Wilson Chan is, as a volunteer, a co-convenor of the Hong Kong International Relations Research Associ- ation. He was serving as a member of the executive committee of the International Affairs Research Centre when the symposium was organised in 2017, under his capacity as a Lecturer, Faculty of Social Science, the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

References

1. Bickers, R. (2009). ‘On not being Macao (ed) in Hong Kong: British Official Minds and Actions in 1967’, pp. 37 – 52 in Yep, R., and Bickers, R. (eds.), May Days in Hong Kong: Riot and Emergency in 1967. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
2. Cheung, G. (2009). Hong Kong’s Watershed – the 1967 Riots. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
3. Chui, E. (2003). ‘Unmasking the ‘naturalness’ of ‘community eclipse’: The Case of Hong Kong’,
   Community Development Journal 38(2):151 – 163.
4. Cooper, J. (1970). Colony in conflict: the Hong Kong disturbances May 1967 – January 1968. Hong
   Kong: Swindon Book Company.
5. Feld, W. (1979). International relations: a transnational approach. Sherman Oaks, CA.: Alfred Pub. Co.
6. Hung, H. F. (1997). ‘Lunshuo liuqi: Kongzuo yishi dixia de Xianggang bentu zhuyi, Zhongguo
   minzuzhuyi yu zuoyi sichao’ (The 1967 Narrative: Hong Kong Localism, Chinese Nationalism and Leftist Thought under Anti-Leftism), pp. 89 – 112 in Shui de chengshi? Zhanhou Xianggang de gongmin wenhua yu zhengzhi lushu (Whose City? Civic Culture and Political Discourse in Post-war Hong Kong), Lo, W. S. (ed.). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
7. Keck, M. E. and Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
8. Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. (1971). Transnational Relations and World Politics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
9. Lam, W. M. (2003). ‘An alternative understanding of political participation: challenging the myth of political indifference in Hong Kong’, International Journal of Public Administration 26(5):473 – 496.
10. Lam, W. M. (2004). Understanding political culture of Hong Kong: the paradox of activism and depoliticization. London: ME Sharpe.
11. Lau, S. K. (1982). Society and politics in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press.
12. Lau, S. K. and Kuan, H. C. (1981). The ethos of the Hong Kong Chinese. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press.
13. Lee, F., Tang G., Yuen, S. and Cheng, E. (2019). ‘Onsite survey findings in Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests’, Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey, the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Retrieved 20 December 2019, from https://sites.google.com/view/antielabsurvey/intro?authuser = 0.
14. Leung, B. K. P. (1991). ‘Social movement as cognitive praxis: the case of the student and labour movements in Hong Kong’, Social Sciences Research Centre Occasional Paper 9. Hong Kong: Social Sciences Research Centre, the University of Hong Kong.
15. Lo, W. L. (1996). Xianggang gushi (Hong Kong Story). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
16. Lui, T. L. and Chiu, S. (1997). ‘The structuring of social movement in contemporary Hong Kong’, China
    Information XII(1/2):97 – 113.
17. Mark, C. K. (2017). ‘Crisis or opportunity? Britain, China and the decolonisation of Hong Kong in the
    Long 1970s’, pp. 257 – 277 in China, Hong Kong, and the Long 1970s: Global Perspectives, Roberts, P
    and Westad, O. A. (eds.). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
18. Putnam, R. (1988). ‘Diplomatic and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games’, International
    Organisation 43(3):427 – 460.
19. Risse-Kappen, T., Biersteker, T. and Smith, S. eds. (1995). Bringing transnational relations back in:
    non-state actors, domestic structures and international institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University
    Press.
20. Scott, I. (1986). ‘Policy-making in a turbulent environment: the case of Hong Kong’, International
    Review of Administrative Sciences 52:447 – 469.
21. Scott, I. (1989). Political change and the crisis of legitimacy in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Oxford
    University Press.
22. Sinclair, G. (2009). “Hong Kong headaches’: policing the 1967 disturbances’, pp. 89 – 104 in May Days
    in Hong Kong: Riot and Emergency in 1967, Bickers, R. and Yep, R. (eds.). Hong Kong: Hong Kong
    University Press.
23. Smith, J., Pagnucco, R. and Chatfield, C. (1997). ‘Social movements and world politics: a theoretical
    framework’, pp. 59 – 77 in Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity Beyond the
    State, Smith, J. Chatfield, C. and Pagnucco, R (eds.) Syracuse, N. Y.: Syracuse University Press.
24. Tang, G. and Yuen R. (2016). ‘Hong Kong as the ‘neoliberal exception’ of China: transformation of Hong Kong citizenship before and after the transfer of sovereignty’, Journal of Chinese Political Science
    21:469 – 484
25. Tarrow, S. (2001). ‘Transnational politics: contention and institutions in international politics’, Annual
    Review of Political Science 4:1 – 20.
26. Tong, C. T. M. (2016). ‘The Hong Kong Week of 1967 and the emergence of Hong Kong identity
    through contradistinction’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Hong Kong Branch 56:40 – 66.
27. Yang, W. (2019). ‘How Hong Kong protests are inspiring movement worldwide”, DW 22 October 2019. Retrieved 20 December 2019, from https://www.dw.com/en/how-hong-kong-protests-are-inspiring-
    movements-worldwide/a-50935907.
28. Yep, R. (2009). ‘The 1967 Riots in Hong Kong: the domestic and diplomatic fronts of the governor”, pp.
    21 – 36 in May Days in Hong Kong: Riot and Emergency in 1967, Bickers, R. and Yep, R. (eds.). Hong
    Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
29. Yep, R. (2012). “‘Cultural revolution in Hong Kong’: emerging powers, administration of justice and the
    turbulent year of 1967”, Modern Asian Studies 46(4): 1007 – 1032.
30. Yep, R., and Bickers, R. (2009). ‘Studying the 1967 Riots: an overdue project’, pp. 1–18 in Yep, R., and
    Bickers, R. (eds.), May Days in Hong Kong: Riot and Emergency in 1967. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
    University Press.
31. Zanier, V. and Peruzzi, R. (2017). ‘1967 as the turning point in Hong Kong-British-PRC economic
    relations’, pp. 223 – 255 in China, Hong Kong, and the Long 1970s: Global Perspectives, Roberts, P and Westad, O. A. (eds.). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
32. Zhou, H. P. (n.d.) ‘Whose sound and fury? The 1967 Riots of Hong Kong through the Times’, Global Media Journal. Retrieved 20 December 2019, from http://www.globalmediajournal.com/open- access/whose-sound-and-fury-the-1967-riots-of-hong-kong-through-the-times.php?aid = 35130.