Editor's Note: This is the first of a two-part series on the street protests by Professor James Hsiung. It will be followed by Part Two on reasons for the dismal failure of "Occupy Central".

Of all the voluminous comments on the political crisis in Hong Kong known as the "Occupy Central" movement, a clear division can be drawn between two groups of on-lookers. Those who back the movement see it as a necessary means - no matter how drastic, or even farcical, for attaining the "pan-democrats" goal of realizing their version of universal suffrage. Their opponents, however, view it as an open, internationally scripted conspiracy to undermine Chinese sovereignty in Hong Kong under the "One Country, Two Systems" principle. I posit that there is an alternative way of viewing these events, as will be explained below.

In the first place, however pitifully, the students who joined the protesters in occupying the usually congested business centers of Admiralty, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok, do not seem to be aware that they are being manipulated as pawns in an insidious political maneuver. The game is being staged against the SAR government and ultimately the Beijing authorities, by certain Hong Kong politicians of hidden agenda using "democracy" and "true universal suffrage" as a front in their rallying cry for wider support.

The true story only became known when it was belatedly revealed in Washington that the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its subsidiary, National Democracy Institute (NDI), under the auspices of the State Department, were behind and indeed, were financing, the "Occupy" movement. In a Land Destroyer Report, Tony Cartalucci revealed details of a secret meeting which two opposition leaders from Hong Kong - Martin Lee and Anson Chan - held at the NED.

There, they confided that the true aim of the "Occupy" movement, planned from as early as April 2013, was to use Hong Kong as a base to "infect" China with its Western-style institutions, laws and interests. Both argued that since China appears concerned about global perceptions of how it governs its people, this could be exploited to obtain concessions from Beijing over its rule of Hong Kong. However the undeclared angle is that the "pan-democrats" hope to bypass Nominating Committee screening procedure and realize their goal of competing in the 2017 election for the Chief Executive (CE) of the HKSAR.

With this knowledge of what he terms a "foreign-driven agenda," Cartalucci concludes that the "Occupy" movement "has nothing to do with democracy", but is "abusing democracy to undermine Beijing's control over Hong Kong, and (designed to) open the door to candidates that clearly serve foreign interests, not those of China, or even the people of Hong Kong."

I would add that demonstrating students and other "Occupy" protesters may sooner or later learn that they are ensnared in this insidious political game. I wonder, though, how they will react when that day comes and they realize they have been ruthlessly manipulated in a cunning political maneuver.

Secondly, I think it necessary to note that the Chief Executive and police have exercised extraordinary self-restraint in the face of "Occupy" provocations. This point only becomes more obvious by making comparisons. During colonial times, for example, no protest of this type would have been tolerated in Hong Kong. Under the prevailing Public Order Ordinance, no demonstration could occur without first having been approved by police. Under the Societies Ordinance, the London-appointed governor would have had the power to declare the kind of connections, like the ones Lee and Chan had with outside plotters, illicit and subject to criminal investigation.

To bring things up to date, in the US "Occupy Wall Street" movement, which began in 2011, nearly 8,000 were arrested, as duly reported in the e-journal Diplomat (Oct 17, 2014). More than that, those who fought with the police were prosecuted. In one case, Cecily McMillan was sentenced by the New York Supreme Court to three months in jail. In addition, the court also sentenced her to five years probation, and required her to complete mental health counseling. Nothing comparable has happened in Hong Kong so far.

Thirdly, the dragging out of the "Occupy" campaign has caused substantial economic losses to storekeepers and other businesses because of the blocking of main thoroughfares and side streets. It has, more importantly, led to widespread revulsion from the silent majority.

One frustrated Hongkonger was overheard saying: "If this is what democracy is about, we'd rather not have democracy." This may have been prompted by a momentary pique to the blocking of some of the city's main thoroughfares. But it may also be an indication that the "Occupy" movement, especially after it has dragged on indefinitely, has not served the cause of democracy as it intended.

The author is professor of politics and international law at New York University, and is author and editor of 22 books, in English alone.

(HK Edition 10/23/2014 page10)