Borrowing the Hong Kong Identity for Chinese Diplomacy: Implications of Margaret Chan's World Health Organization Election Campaign
Bibliographic record
Abstract
F ■ lhe year 2006 appears to have marked the rise of Asian influence in I the international arena. The positions of secretary-general of the JL United Nations (UN) and director-general (DG) of the World Health Organization (WHO) were both taken up by Asian candidates. While the installation of Ban Ki-moon at the UN was a result of realpolitik compromise, and did not leave much of a role for his native South Korean government to play, the victory of Margaret Chan in the WHO DG election was regarded as a remarkable achievement of Chinese diplomacy and proof of an innovative approach by the former Leninist state. Although Chan is celebrated as the first-ever Chinese person to head a significant international organization, her identity is more complex than appears at first sight. As a director of the Department of Health in colonial Hong Kong, with no prior personal connection to Beijing, Chan was an unexpected choice. What was the benefit to Beijing of using Chan's Hong Kong identity, and what precisely is this identity? How did Chan's fellow citizens view the campaign? Will Hong Kong's one country, two systems approach be enhanced, or hampered, by this development? While Beijing has loudly extolled the meaning of Chan's success to China in general, these questions concerning the interaction between Beijing and Hong Kong remain relatively under-studied. This article aims to answer these questions in three sections. First, we shall review the contemporary diplomatic goals of China, define Chan's Hong Kong identity and set aside a framework to study the interaction of the two. Second, the article will discuss the short-term benefits of Chan's identity in the WHO campaign and also the longer-term impact for Chinese diplomacy. Third, the article will address the different reactions in Hong Kong towards
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".