Tim Collard suggests young people in Hong Kong should try to make a difference by adopting a realistic approach instead of seeking goals that are impossible to achieve

One of the mottoes of the highly idealistic Paris student demonstrations of 1968 was "Be realistic, demand the impossible". This, of course, was absurd - and was, at most, meant to highlight the absurdity of the French political situation as the students saw it. It cannot have been seriously meant as a political program. A hundred years earlier, the Prussian chancellor Otto von Bismarck was much clearer-sighted when he described politics as "the art of the possible": meaning that one could be daring and innovative in one's political policies, but should always allow oneself to be limited by seeing the difference between what was possible and what was not.

The French students made a lot of noise and caused some disruption, but very little was changed - though quite a few of them did go on to become influential philosophers. Bismarck, however, succeeded - by a combination of single-mindedness and opportunism - in forging the numerous small German states into a single nation, which - with certain interruptions - has survived and flourished to this day.

In Hong Kong, however, we are seeing the demand for the impossible reincarnated, in the form of proposals for Hong Kong's "independence" from China. There surely cannot be anyone, in Hong Kong or anywhere else, who sees "Hong Kong independence" as a possible development at any time in the foreseeable future. Therefore the "independence" advocates must realize, even as they are making these demands, that they are as impossible as anything demanded by the French students of 1968. So what is motivating them?

There must be a degree of despair involved; young people may be losing hope of living in a future environment which addresses their concerns. There may also be a degree of immaturity involved; nobody, whoever they may be, is going to get everything they want out of life. We need to set realistic goals and be prepared for disappointments. Both despair and immaturity are the wrong reactions: There is always scope for improving one's situation and achieving at least some of one's goals, and we cannot expect to be simply presented with ideal solutions - we will have to work within the framework of necessity to shape our own destinies.

It is, of course, vitally necessary that the younger generation of Hong Kong people are firmly integrated with the developing future of the territory, which can only be as part of China. It would be disastrous if the energies of some of Hong Kong's best-educated and most radically imaginative young people were allowed to run into the sand pursuing ends which are not only impossible but can only lead to trouble with the law. People who can think "outside the box" and have no fear of the previously unknown are desperately needed in the innovative industries; it is always a mistake to concentrate one's endeavors too closely on politics, which is not and never can be an end in itself.

When I worked as a diplomat in Beijing, my rule was always: Don't make blunt statements or ask blunt questions which were bound to elicit the answer you didn't want. It is not that Chinese mainland officials were unwilling to listen to different views: But those views had to be presented respectfully, and in a way which demonstrated that you had taken full account of established Chinese views and positions (even when you were in disagreement with them). When I followed those provisos, I found I could put over my government's position without any fear of an angry reaction, even though our views did not always find favor. I know that many in Hong Kong will not want to see the British colonial government held up as a shining example; but it is a fact that the diplomatic team which I was part of had a fair degree of success in negotiating the transfer of sovereignty with a firm and practically detailed commitment to the Basic Law's central plank of "One Country, Two Systems". And we did this by pragmatic diplomacy and the avoidance of deliberate confrontation.

I can only hope that those in opposition to the policies of the Hong Kong government will think up ways to hold the executive to account in ways which accord with the law as it obtains in the Hong Kong SAR, and in ways which will not deliberately provoke the central government into actions which it would prefer not to be forced into taking. Every government is better and stronger for being held to account, and there are so many ways for radical thinkers to oppose constructively. But destructive opposition is likely to cause more widespread destruction than it intends to. Let us hope that those who believe Hong Kong needs change can learn a few lessons from Bismarck.

The author is a sinologist and former British diplomat in Beijing for nine years. He now works as a freelance commentator and writer.

(China Daily 08/11/2016 page12)