n May 25th, Hong Kong experienced a resurgence of mass gatherings where thousands of pro-democracy protesters were met with police firing tear-gas and water cannons. Similar to last year’s civil unrest surrounding the Hong Kong government’s proposal to legislate an extradition bill, this comes in response to rising fears that Beijing plans to undermine Hong Kong’s autonomy by unilaterally implementing a national security law that would effectively prohibit any sort of “treason, secession, sedition, and subversion.”
At the time, what was alarming about this announcement is that Beijing made its intention clear that it would circumvent Hong Kong’s own legislative system—a move considered an infringement on Hong Kong’s status as a Special Administrative Region. When Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, talked to reporters a few days after the first protest, she staunchly endorsed Beijing’s proposal, and even maintained that “Hong Kong’s freedom would be preserved, calling the city ‘a very free society.’” But many Hong Kong residents find little to no credence in her words.
Consequences of Beijing’s Law
With Beijing’s decision to pass this legislation, many effectively see this as the end to Deng Xiaoping’s “One Country, Two Systems” framework. Some prominent pro-democracy activists such as Dennis Kwok, a member of Hong Kong’s Civic Party, raised this very point when he said that “this is the end of ‘One Country Two Systems,’ make no mistake about it.” Nathan Law, another well-known democracy activist, noted that what Beijing would define as political dissent is currently “open to interpretation”, but he, like many others, fear that Beijing-backed officials can arbitrarily punish those who want to openly express their discontent with the Hong Kong government by, for example, organizing protests.
Similarly, Martin Lee, one of Hong Kong’s preeminent pro-democracy activists and founder of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post after he, along with 14 other activists, were arrested in April for their participation in some of last year’s anti-extradition protests. Lee not only decried the Chinese government’s ongoing interference in Hong Kong’s political affairs, but recalled how Beijing almost got away with passing this legislation (Article 23) back in 2003. Though this particular failed attempt is a part of the past, the motivations behind it have been a part of Hong Kong’s past, present, and if Beijing sees it fit, the future.
Due to public health concerns surrounding the coronavirus, the Hong Kong government enacted an order prohibiting residents from convening at Victoria Park for the annual candlelight vigil normally held on June 4th to remember those who perished during the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. But pro-democracy activists were outraged because they see this ban as a violation on their civil liberties. Notwithstanding this order, thousands of Hong Kong residents came together to honor the memory of all who died 31 years ago to fight for democracy in mainland China, but many participants fear that this will not be a right that they will have this time next year. This is just the beginning of what is to come if Beijing maintains its modus operandi of interfering in Hong Kong’s political affairs by fully implementing the national security law.
The International Community’s Response
For the time being, leaders from all over the world are grappling with how to best handle the delicate balancing act of resuming economic activity through gradual re-openings and containing the COVID-19 virus. But despite this global priority, it comes as no surprise that Beijing’s bellicosity has not gone unnoticed.
In Washington, members of President Trump’s administration had indicated that they may pursue the avenue of applying sanctions, which is something that U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo can implement through the use of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019. Under this law, the State Department has the authority to conduct a yearly audit on whether or not Hong Kong has been able “to enjoy a high degree of autonomy” in accordance with the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed in 1984. In fact, on May 27, Secretary Pompeo announced that Hong Kong does not maintain a sufficient amount of autonomy. Two days later at a White House press briefing, President Trump informed the public that he and his administration are initiating the process of removing Hong Kong’s special trading status. He also said that Washington will take other measures such as sanctioning any Hong Kong and/or PRC governmental official involved in facilitating the suppression of the Rule of Law in Hong Kong.
Meanwhile, the European Union’s foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has expressed his deep concern that this legislation will undermine Hong Kong’s autonomy, but insisted that imposing sanctions is not the right course of action in response. In addition, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently wrote an op-ed for the South China Morning Post, confirming that London is ready to enhance visa rights for any Hong Kong nationals with a British National Overseas (BNO) passport who decides to seek refuge in the United Kingdom—an unprecedented immigration move. He added that this would pave a path towards British citizenship for any BNO passport holder who pursues this option.
On an international scale, over 800 current and former public officials from nearly 40 countries, including the last British governor of Hong Kong, Lord Patten, issued a joint statement, expressing their deep concerns over the erosion of Hong Kong’s “autonomy, rule of law, and fundamental freedoms.” On June 5, a group of 18 lawmakers from all over the world including the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Japan, and the European Parliament established a non-partisan coalition called the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), whose mission is to coordinate a tough response to Beijing’s aggression by ensuring that their continual rise as a global power does not come at the cost of subverting the Rule of Law.
What’s Next for Hong Kong?
Beijing’s intransigence has received widespread condemnation by the United States and other countries. Yet questions and concerns remain about how the passing of the national security law will foreshadow a continuing loss of political autonomy and an economic downturn for Hong Kong. But based on Washington’s announcement to remove Hong Kong’s special trading status, there are other geopolitical implications worth considering. This includes how the great-power competition between Washington and Beijing will continue to follow a downward spiral towards a divorce the likes of which we haven’t previously seen in the 21st century; how—or if—Washington’s implementation of these policies will play a significant role in the upcoming U.S. presidential election on November 3; and to what extent this will change Washington’s role in global governance for years to come, among others.
Irrespective of your approach in tackling these questions and the issues at-hand, the international community will need to present a united front in reminding Beijing that it needs to adhere to the Sino-British Joint Declaration—a treaty that was recognized by the United Nations in June 1985. The Chinese government should not renege on this agreement by using loopholes.
If the world does not want to witness the irrevocable loss of Hong Kong’s political autonomy and its status as a global financial capital, there is a great need for a firm multilateral response with the United States, along with other international partners that espouse free enterprise and the Rule of Law, in order to navigate these cold, uncertain waters, as the Hong Kong people cannot weather these tides by themselves. If Beijing remains emboldened by its latest move, it will mean that Hong Kong will reach a point of no return, along with an end to the “One Country, Two Systems” framework as we know it.
a global affairs media network
Hong Kong Weathering the High Tides of Beijing’s Political Interference
Photo by Joseph Chan via Unsplash.
June 7, 2020
O
n May 25th, Hong Kong experienced a resurgence of mass gatherings where thousands of pro-democracy protesters were met with police firing tear-gas and water cannons. Similar to last year’s civil unrest surrounding the Hong Kong government’s proposal to legislate an extradition bill, this comes in response to rising fears that Beijing plans to undermine Hong Kong’s autonomy by unilaterally implementing a national security law that would effectively prohibit any sort of “treason, secession, sedition, and subversion.”
At the time, what was alarming about this announcement is that Beijing made its intention clear that it would circumvent Hong Kong’s own legislative system—a move considered an infringement on Hong Kong’s status as a Special Administrative Region. When Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, talked to reporters a few days after the first protest, she staunchly endorsed Beijing’s proposal, and even maintained that “Hong Kong’s freedom would be preserved, calling the city ‘a very free society.’” But many Hong Kong residents find little to no credence in her words.
Consequences of Beijing’s Law
With Beijing’s decision to pass this legislation, many effectively see this as the end to Deng Xiaoping’s “One Country, Two Systems” framework. Some prominent pro-democracy activists such as Dennis Kwok, a member of Hong Kong’s Civic Party, raised this very point when he said that “this is the end of ‘One Country Two Systems,’ make no mistake about it.” Nathan Law, another well-known democracy activist, noted that what Beijing would define as political dissent is currently “open to interpretation”, but he, like many others, fear that Beijing-backed officials can arbitrarily punish those who want to openly express their discontent with the Hong Kong government by, for example, organizing protests.
Similarly, Martin Lee, one of Hong Kong’s preeminent pro-democracy activists and founder of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post after he, along with 14 other activists, were arrested in April for their participation in some of last year’s anti-extradition protests. Lee not only decried the Chinese government’s ongoing interference in Hong Kong’s political affairs, but recalled how Beijing almost got away with passing this legislation (Article 23) back in 2003. Though this particular failed attempt is a part of the past, the motivations behind it have been a part of Hong Kong’s past, present, and if Beijing sees it fit, the future.
Due to public health concerns surrounding the coronavirus, the Hong Kong government enacted an order prohibiting residents from convening at Victoria Park for the annual candlelight vigil normally held on June 4th to remember those who perished during the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. But pro-democracy activists were outraged because they see this ban as a violation on their civil liberties. Notwithstanding this order, thousands of Hong Kong residents came together to honor the memory of all who died 31 years ago to fight for democracy in mainland China, but many participants fear that this will not be a right that they will have this time next year. This is just the beginning of what is to come if Beijing maintains its modus operandi of interfering in Hong Kong’s political affairs by fully implementing the national security law.
The International Community’s Response
For the time being, leaders from all over the world are grappling with how to best handle the delicate balancing act of resuming economic activity through gradual re-openings and containing the COVID-19 virus. But despite this global priority, it comes as no surprise that Beijing’s bellicosity has not gone unnoticed.
In Washington, members of President Trump’s administration had indicated that they may pursue the avenue of applying sanctions, which is something that U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo can implement through the use of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019. Under this law, the State Department has the authority to conduct a yearly audit on whether or not Hong Kong has been able “to enjoy a high degree of autonomy” in accordance with the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed in 1984. In fact, on May 27, Secretary Pompeo announced that Hong Kong does not maintain a sufficient amount of autonomy. Two days later at a White House press briefing, President Trump informed the public that he and his administration are initiating the process of removing Hong Kong’s special trading status. He also said that Washington will take other measures such as sanctioning any Hong Kong and/or PRC governmental official involved in facilitating the suppression of the Rule of Law in Hong Kong.
Meanwhile, the European Union’s foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has expressed his deep concern that this legislation will undermine Hong Kong’s autonomy, but insisted that imposing sanctions is not the right course of action in response. In addition, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently wrote an op-ed for the South China Morning Post, confirming that London is ready to enhance visa rights for any Hong Kong nationals with a British National Overseas (BNO) passport who decides to seek refuge in the United Kingdom—an unprecedented immigration move. He added that this would pave a path towards British citizenship for any BNO passport holder who pursues this option.
On an international scale, over 800 current and former public officials from nearly 40 countries, including the last British governor of Hong Kong, Lord Patten, issued a joint statement, expressing their deep concerns over the erosion of Hong Kong’s “autonomy, rule of law, and fundamental freedoms.” On June 5, a group of 18 lawmakers from all over the world including the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Japan, and the European Parliament established a non-partisan coalition called the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), whose mission is to coordinate a tough response to Beijing’s aggression by ensuring that their continual rise as a global power does not come at the cost of subverting the Rule of Law.
What’s Next for Hong Kong?
Beijing’s intransigence has received widespread condemnation by the United States and other countries. Yet questions and concerns remain about how the passing of the national security law will foreshadow a continuing loss of political autonomy and an economic downturn for Hong Kong. But based on Washington’s announcement to remove Hong Kong’s special trading status, there are other geopolitical implications worth considering. This includes how the great-power competition between Washington and Beijing will continue to follow a downward spiral towards a divorce the likes of which we haven’t previously seen in the 21st century; how—or if—Washington’s implementation of these policies will play a significant role in the upcoming U.S. presidential election on November 3; and to what extent this will change Washington’s role in global governance for years to come, among others.
Irrespective of your approach in tackling these questions and the issues at-hand, the international community will need to present a united front in reminding Beijing that it needs to adhere to the Sino-British Joint Declaration—a treaty that was recognized by the United Nations in June 1985. The Chinese government should not renege on this agreement by using loopholes.
If the world does not want to witness the irrevocable loss of Hong Kong’s political autonomy and its status as a global financial capital, there is a great need for a firm multilateral response with the United States, along with other international partners that espouse free enterprise and the Rule of Law, in order to navigate these cold, uncertain waters, as the Hong Kong people cannot weather these tides by themselves. If Beijing remains emboldened by its latest move, it will mean that Hong Kong will reach a point of no return, along with an end to the “One Country, Two Systems” framework as we know it.
