Addressing the issue of independence for Hong Kong, Li Ka-shing (李嘉誠), Hong Kong’s wealthiest man, said that independence is something that Hong Kongers would never seek and that Hong Kong does not have what is required to become an independent state.
Qiao Xiaoyang (喬曉陽), chairman of the law committee of the National People’s Congress — the organ overseeing the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China — immediately said that it is impossible for Hong Kong to become a sovereign, independent country.
However, Hong Kong was taken over by China as early as 1972, rather than at the handover from the UK to China on July 1, 1997, and if Hong Kong wants independence, all it has to do is turn to the UN.
The UN Charter, which was adopted in 1945, affirms the principle of self-determination for non-self-governing territories, and at the first session of the UN General Assembly on Dec. 14, 1946, the assembly passed Resolution 66, Transmission of Information Under Article 73e of the Charter, which designated 74 territories as non-self-governing territories. One of those territories was Hong Kong, and some of the others were Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, Malaysia and Singapore.
On Dec. 14, 1960, the General Assembly passed Resolution 1514, Declaration On the Granting of Independence To Colonial Countries and Peoples.
The resolution demanded that the General Assembly’s Special Committee propose ways in which colonial territories could be made self-governing and independent as soon as possible.
However, at the time, Hong Kong suffered from the misconception that the “status quo” would remain unchanged — much like the situation in Taiwan today — and this attitude only served to give China ample time to prepare for its annexation.
On Nov. 2, 1972, China’s long-term effort to buy up UN officials finally paid off, and at the same time as UN Resolution 2908, Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, was passed, the General Assembly also decided that Hong Kong was a “Chinese territory,” rather than a British one, following a recommendation by the Special Committee.
Britain did not file a protest against this decision until on Dec. 14 that year, when it said that “the action of the General Assembly in no way affected the legal status of Hong Kong.”
The protest was supported only by Fiji, Sweden and Venezuela.
In September 1982, then-British prime minister Margaret Thatcher met with then-Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) in Beijing, over what remaining value Hong Kong could continue to hold for the UK following a decision that it should be returned to China.
While it is true that this cruel story is all about Hong Kong, it should nevertheless be a constant warning bell in the back of Taiwanese minds.
Sim Kiantek is a former associate professor in the Department of Business Administration at National Chung Hsing University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
RSS