There are signs indicating a stormy political summer in Hong Kong. In previous years Hong Kong would have been one of the least likely places on earth to see turmoil on the streets - everyone was far too heavily occupied making a living - but this year a number of underlying concerns have broken the surface and given rise to growing turbulence. Most visibly, the activists from "Occupy Central" have decided this is the time to bring concerns relating to Hong Kong's constitutional future to a head, even though the promised introduction of a form of universal suffrage is still three years away.

One of the biggest problems facing the "Occupy Central" movement is that, although its objectives are clearly set out, its targets are divided, and thus unclear. The immediate objects of any disruption will be the commercial giants of Hong Kong, as these giants and their representatives are not slow to point out. Insofar as the aims of the movement encompass a better deal for low-income workers, the unemployed, public housing applicants etc, then a public demonstration in Central might well be appropriate. But, as everyone knows, the demonstration's target is not primarily economic but political. And thus it is aimed also at the central government in Beijing. Divided targets, divided aims; rarely a recipe for success.

It can be emotionally satisfying to plan and fight battles which one knows from the outset one is unable to win. But that will be the limit of one's satisfaction. An unwise confrontation can leave one further from one's desired objective than one was at the start. If the "Occupy Central" movement provokes the government into suppression, how likely is it that the outcome will advance the cause of political freedom in Hong Kong?

The central government issue of a white paper setting out Beijing's interpretation of the constitutional provisions of the Basic Law might be seen by protesters as a provocation and instigation to redouble their efforts; but I do not think it was meant that way. Beijing is anxious not to raise the temperature, but to inject a degree of realism into the debate.

The organizers of "Occupy Central" should take care not to lead their followers into an unwinnable battle in which their followers have far more to lose than they do. As Security Secretary Lai Tung-kwok pointed out for the benefit of China Daily readers on June 12, civil disobedience as planned by "Occupy Central" is likely to involve breaches of the law. I am not going to moralize here, but "Occupy" activists should be taking note. Professors Benny Tai Yiu-ting and Chan Kin-man are no doubt sincere in their convictions, but they are operating from the relative safety of established academic positions. The younger "Occupy" activists do not have such a secure base; they have their careers before them, and may come to regret landing themselves with criminal records or, worse, with the label "unpatriotic" permanently attached to their names. This may not seem to matter so much at the age of 20; at 30 things may look different. This ignores the very real danger that the more peaceable intentions of the majority of activists may be overwhelmed and dragged into complicity by the fervor of the hothead brigade.

Direct confrontation with Beijing is obviously madness. But direct confrontation with the powers that are in Hong Kong, though less dangerous, is surely not much more helpful. If one takes it as read that the objective is the maximum degree of popular democracy for post-2017 Hong Kong, how is that objective to be best achieved? It can only be done by getting Beijing on-side. To do that, it will be necessary to provide the HKSAR's leaders and negotiators with the strongest possible hand in their discussions with central government. Yes, by all means demonstrate that your ideas have popular support and need to be represented vis--vis Beijing. But, firstly, you will need to keep the Hong Kong political and commercial leadership on-side as well. And secondly, the more extreme and uncompromising your position becomes, the more your support base will narrow. "Occupy Central" does not want to find itself facing the full wrath of the law with an inadequate and dwindling support base.

It is legitimate to make it clear, through demonstrations, that large sections of Hong Kong society are concerned about universal suffrage. When negotiating this issue with the central government, the leadership of the HKSAR should be able to demonstrate strong popular support for their line. The central government would far rather work with the grain of Hong Kong opinion than simply stamp out dissent; but, as we know, the latter option will always remain on the table if the provocation is too strong. It is time that the "Occupy Central" movement retrenched itself and looked clearly and soberly at the likely consequences of its actions.

The author served 1986-2006 in the British Diplomatic Service, including nine years in Beijing. He is now a freelance writer, journalist and commentator on political, economic and diplomatic affairs, especially China.

(HK Edition 06/25/2014 page9)