Britain's ‘betrayal’ of Hong Kong: A second look

Claims of British bungling and betrayal were repeatedly raised during the prolonged run‐up to the 1997 Hong Kong handover. This paper seeks to evaluate such claims. It examines five controversial episodes of reputed British mishandling of the Hong Kong transition: (1) Governor Murray MacLehose's reputed double faux pas of March 1979, when the governor first putatively erred by prematurely (and unnecessarily) raising the ‘1997 question’ in a routine meeting with Deng Xiaoping and then compounded his error by misrepresenting Deng's less‐than‐reassuring response; (2) Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's 1982 miscalculation in requesting a 50‐year extension of the New Territories lease when it was already abundantly clear that Chinese leaders regarded the original lease as ‘unequal'—and therefore non‐binding; (3) Britain's 1987 decision to unilaterally postpone Hong Kong's first direct legislative elections, a decision defended on the disingenuous grounds that government surveys had revealed a majority of the Hong Kong public to be opposed to rapid democratization; (4) Britain's ostensible failure, in the aftermath of the 1989 Tiananmen debacle, to secure the inclusion of adequate democratic safeguards in the final draft of the Hong Kong Basic Law, completed early in 1990; and (5) Governor Chris Patten's ill‐starred democratic reform initiatives of 1992–95, which sharply reversed Britain's previous ‘convergence’ policy and ultimately led to the derailing of Hong Kong's vaunted ‘through train’. Examining available evidence on these five episodes (and one or two other, related cases), this paper argues that despite occasional, palpable policy miscalculations and a notable lack of official candor, Britain did not do serious harm to the vital interests of Hong Kong. On the contrary, the paper argues, given the substantial advantage in resources and leverage enjoyed by the Chinese side throughout the transition period, a more favorable outcome could hardly have been achieved. The one residual allegation of British betrayal that cannot readily be countered, however, is the charge that racism within Britain's ruling Conservative Party—manifested in Parliamentary legislation severely restricting the flow of immigrants from British colonial territories—played a significant role in the British Government's choice of tactics in dealing with the ‘1997 question’.     

Aufklärung und Abwehr: The lasting legacy of the Stasi under Ernst Wollweber

The following article traces the development of East Germany's secret police, the Stasi, during the reign of Ernst Wollweber, the second Minister of State Security. By examining key Stasi operations during this period, notably the ‘concentrated strikes’ strategy following the June 1953 revolution, the campaign against Ostbüros, and operations to secure the economy, and by examining Wollweber's major speeches, it argues that Wollweber's reign was a decisive one for the Stasi because of the integration of intelligence gathering outside of East Germany (Aufklärung) with domestic surveillance (Abwehr). Although this balance shifted toward external duties in Wollweber's landmark August 1955 speech, Wollweber continued to promote integration of the two duties, in particular by anchoring the intelligence gathering duties in the local-level domestic structures of the Stasi.     

Making the difference: Deleuze's difference and Derrida's différance

This paper seeks to explore the differences between Derrida's différance and Deleuze's difference. Derrida ‘s différance can be seen as based on a phenomenological theory of time, whereby the future is ‘prior’ to the past, and on a Hegelian theory of negation (but without final term or synthesis). Deleuze's, by contrast, relies on a Bergsonian theory of time as the actualization of virtualities, along with a positive and qualitative notion of difference derived from Nietzsche, Leibniz and Spinoza. The paper suggests some implications of these differences for Derrida's and Deleuze's approaches to criticism.     

Administering the Overseas Vote

While there is a growing academic literature about mail-in ballots, there has been no serious academic research to date on overseas voters, even though the counting of overseas military ballots figured into the 2000 presidential election controversy. The participation of nearly 4 million overseas voters, both civilian and military, is governed by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. The authors examine the reported perceptions of military and nonmilitary voters covered by this legislation using two surveys funded by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, focusing on their perceptions of electronic means of transmitting voting materials. The authors find that civilian overseas citizens have a harder time registering and voting than military overseas citizens; that the key factor is the timely transmission of voting materials; and that, despite privacy concerns, electronic transmission of voting materials is viewed favorably.     

Taking agroecology to scale: the Zero Budget Natural Farming peasant movement in Karnataka,India

This paper analyzes how peasant movements scale up agroecology. It specifically examines Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF), a grassroots peasant agroecology movement in Karnataka, India. ZBNF ends reliance on purchased inputs and loans for farming, positioning itself as a solution to extreme indebtedness and suicides among Indian farmers. The ZBNF movement has achieved massive scale not only because of effective farming practices, but because of a social movement dynamic – motivating members through discourse, mobilizing resources from allies, self-organized pedagogical activities, charismatic and local leadership, and generating a spirit of volunteerism among its members. This paper was produced as part of a self-study process in La Via Campesina, the global peasant movement.