Why Appeasement Failed Hong Kong

Why Appeasement Failed Hong Kong

Apple Daily Images ()

The High Cost of Treating Communism as a Negotiating Partner

Throughout Hong Kong’s democratic struggle, a recurring argument surfaced: avoid confrontation, preserve dialogue, trust gradualism. This approach, rooted in democratic norms, proved disastrously ineffective against a Communist regime that does not negotiate power, only timing.

Appeasement took many forms. Business leaders urged calm. Politicians promoted compromise. Foreign governments encouraged restraint. Each assumed that goodwill would be reciprocated. The CCP interpreted these gestures not as partnership, but as opportunity.

Every concession strengthened the Party’s position. Delayed reforms normalized stagnation. Narrowed demands lowered expectations. Silence was interpreted as consent. The space for resistance shrank accordingly.

Communist regimes treat dialogue instrumentally. Engagement buys time. Promises deflect pressure. Commitments are reversible. Rights are conditional. Appeasement misunderstands this dynamic fundamentally.

Hong Kong’s moderates believed they were preventing escalation. In practice, they postponed confrontation until it was unwinnable. By the time repression intensified, institutions had been captured and movements fragmented.

The international community repeated the same mistake. Economic engagement was framed as influence. In reality, it became dependence. Sanctions were avoided to preserve access. Access preserved control.

Appeasement failed not because intentions were malicious, but because assumptions were wrong. Democracies project their own norms onto systems that reject them.

Hong Kong’s lesson is clear. Authoritarian regimes do not moderate when accommodated. They advance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *