A year ago, after more than ten years in the UK and several years in the US – including a stint working for the United Nations in New York City – I returned to Asia and arrived in Hong Kong hoping to also become a major center of international relations.
Hong Kong is often described as the “central link” between China and the world. Yet in one important domain – the study and practice of international relations – the city remains an enigma: globally connected, intellectually vibrant but structurally peripheral.
This is not for lack of talent or institutions. Hong Kong universities tend to have internationally trained scholars, regional security and area studies focusing on Asia. Their research circulates in popular journals and contributes to international debates.
And yet, Hong Kong has not emerged as a major hub of international relations comparable to New York City or even Singapore. The reasons lie not in ability, but in the structure created by history and geography.
One reason is colonialism. Under British rule, Hong Kong gradually established a high-quality higher education system embedded in international academia. This foundation allowed scholars to engage seamlessly with the discipline of international relations. But colonial rule also meant that Hong Kong never developed its own foreign policy tools.
Decisions on diplomacy, strategy and international cooperation were made elsewhere. International relations evolved as an academic field, overlapping with China studies or political science, rather than a policy-based ecosystem associated with real-time decision-making. That lack of structure continues.
