How Hong Kong can actively shape the foreign policy debate

A year ago, after more than a decade in the United Kingdom and several years in the United States – including time working for the United Nations in New York City – I returned to Asia and arrived in Hong Kong expecting it to also be a leading hub for international relations. Hong Kong is often described as a “superconnector” between China and the world. Yet in one crucial domain – the study and practice of international relations – the city remains a paradox: globally connected, intellectually vibrant but structurally peripheral. This is not for lack of talent or institutions. Hong Kong’s universities host internationally trained scholars, regional security and Asia-focused area studies. Their research circulates in leading journals and contributes to global debates. And yet, Hong Kong has not emerged as a major international relations hub comparable to New York City or even Singapore. The reasons lie not in capacity, but in structure shaped by history and geography. One factor is colonialism. Under British rule, Hong Kong gradually developed a world-class higher education system embedded in global academia. This foundation allowed scholars to seamlessly engage with the international relations discipline. But colonial governance also meant Hong Kong never developed its own foreign policy apparatus. Decisions on diplomacy, strategy and international engagement were made elsewhere. International relations evolved as an academic field, overlapping with China studies or political science, rather than as a policy-oriented ecosystem linked to real-time decision-making. That structural absence persists. The second factor is Beijing’s gravitational pull. As China’s diplomatic centre, Beijing hosts the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, embassies and leading policy think tanks, along with institutions such as China Foreign Affairs University. It is there that China’s foreign policy is debated, formulated and implemented. This creates a classic international relations ecosystem in which academia, policy and diplomacy are tightly intertwined. Scholars in Beijing often operate close to the policy process, while Hong Kong-based academics largely remain observers. The result is a structural asymmetry: Hong Kong is internationally connected but institutionally detached from diplomatic power. Its international relations community is strong in analysis but weak in policy influence. However, Hong Kong is not without its advantages. From my experience in New York City, a true international relations hub is defined not simply by academic excellence, but the density of interaction between scholars, diplomats and international organisations. Hong Kong may lack that ecosystem, but it has something else: the ability to interpret, translate and connect. Precisely because it sits outside Beijing’s policy system, Hong Kong can act as a bridge that interprets China for international audiences and translates global debates into a China-relevant context. The real question is whether Hong Kong can move beyond being merely a bridge to becoming a node – an active site where global governance ideas are not only discussed but shaped. A window of opportunity may be opening. As the US recalibrates its engagement with the UN system and multilateral frameworks, and as regionalism gains momentum, the geography of global governance is shifting. Hong Kong’s role could become more significant, particularly if some international organisations or functions expand their presence in China. Existing institutions already point to this potential. The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre has established itself as a leading global dispute resolution hub, showing how Hong Kong can leverage its legal system and international credibility. More broadly, Beijing increasingly expects Hong Kong to complement mainland cities by making use of its distinct political, financial and international character. In some cases, distance from the political capital can be an advantage. Cities such as New York City and Shanghai show how global governance ecosystems can flourish outside national diplomatic centres. Emerging initiatives – including partnerships between China Foreign Affairs University and Hong Kong universities to train talent for international organisations – reflect this evolving role. But this transformation will not happen automatically. It requires deliberate strategy. First, Hong Kong must invest in building a stronger policy ecosystem. This means developing think tanks, education programmes and platforms that connect academia with practitioners. Without such linkages, international relations scholarship will remain detached from the real world. Second, the city should leverage its position to host regular high-level dialogues, particularly on issues where China is central, such as artificial intelligence, climate governance and development finance. Hong Kong can offer a politically and intellectually distinct space that neither Beijing nor Western capitals can replicate. Third, universities must move beyond fragmented efforts and build critical mass. Joint institutes, cross-university programmes and coordinated research agendas could transform a collection of strong departments into a recognisable global hub. Hong Kong’s universities are currently investing heavily in science and technology to support the city’s innovation ambitions. While this is understandable, an exclusive focus on STEM risks overlooking the institutional foundations required for global governance. If Hong Kong aspires to be more than a financial centre, it must also invest in building a robust international relations and policy ecosystem. Competition is intensifying. Singapore has long invested in international relations and global governance, shaping debates on regional security in Asia. Within China, Shanghai has developed a growing international relations and policy community, fulfilling roles Beijing cannot easily perform. Hong Kong must act, or risks being bypassed by others. Hong Kong has the potential. Its challenge is whether it can convert its structural position into a coherent institutional future. In global affairs, position must be matched by strategy.

How Hong Kong can actively shape the foreign policy debate

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Globally connected and intellectually vibrant, the city can offer cutting-edge research and lead diplomatic debates of global importance

Globally connected and intellectually vibrant, the city can offer cutting-edge research and lead diplomatic debates of global importance