Hong Kong is on a knife’s edge. Once one of Asia’s freest and most open cities, it now faces the specter of Beijing-imposed security legislation that would curtail Hong Kongers’ liberties and create a climate of fear.
The legislation is in flagrant breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which is registered at the UN, and would open the doors for widespread human-rights violations. The UN cannot let this stand.
The UK returned Hong Kong to China 23 years ago on the promise that the territory would enjoy a “high degree of autonomy” under the “one country, two systems” principle for at least 50 years. For the first decade or so, China largely fulfilled that promise.
Then, its commitment began to wane.
By 2014, Hong Kongers were protesting the government’s failure to deliver on the guarantee included in the Basic Law that the territory’s chief executive would be elected by “universal suffrage.”
In the ensuing years, booksellers offering titles critical of China’s rulers were abducted to mainland China.
Pro-democracy legislators and candidates were harassed and disqualified from elections. Foreign journalists and high-profile human-rights advocates were expelled from Hong Kong or denied entry.
Simon Cheng (鄭文傑), a Hong Konger who worked for the UK government, was detained for 15 days after a trip to mainland China, where he was tortured until he “confessed” to soliciting prostitution.
When Hong Kongers pushed back, they paid a steep price.
The 2014 “Umbrella movement” earned its name from the shields protesters used against tear gas. However, when even larger protests erupted last year, they were met with more extreme violence by the security forces.
Though the demonstrations were largely peaceful, especially early on, police deployed all manner of weapons — including batons and, in a few cases, live ammunition — with impunity.
In January, two UN special rapporteurs issued a communication alleging the “inappropriate use of chemical agents,” including “hazardous substances such as tear gas, pepper spray, pepper balls, and irritating chemical constituents dispersed from water cannons.”
Moreover, in February, four UN human-rights experts wrote to the Chinese government detailing evidence of harassment, intimidation and detention of health care workers during the protests.
According to the report, “large numbers” of such workers were arrested and “hand-cuffed with zip-cords.” Even after providing identification, they were arrested for “taking part in a riot” and detained for 24 hours with no access to legal counsel, before being released on bail and pending charges. The report also highlighted “the misuse of health-care transport, facilities, and confidential information.”
The Hong Kong authorities — and the rulers in Beijing who back them — have not backed down. In April, they arrested 15 of the territory’s most respected pro-democracy leaders, including the “father” of the movement, 82-year-old attorney Martin Lee (李柱銘).
Last month, China’s National People’s Congress set in motion — by a 2,878 to one vote — the drafting process of new security legislation for Hong Kong.
While the details of the new legislation have not been announced, it is known to contain provisions barring “subversion,” “secession,” or “collusion with foreign political forces” — vaguely defined crimes that offer China’s rulers legal cover to crack down on any form of dissent.
For example, Hong Kongers who brief foreign parliamentarians, human-rights groups, or journalists could be deemed to be committing a crime.
The law would also allow China’s government to set up “security organs” in Hong Kong.
Both the Hong Kong Bar Association and the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales warn that the security legislation would severely undermine fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, assembly, association, and religion or belief.
As nearly 900 international leaders — from former prime ministers and presidents to prominent legal and human-rights experts — noted in a joint declaration, the law amounts to a “comprehensive assault” on Hong Kong’s “autonomy, rule of law, and fundamental freedoms,” being a “flagrant breach” of the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong and a leading organizer of the joint declaration, has declared that “defenders of liberal democracy must not stand idly by” — but what should they do?
The UN could establish a special envoy or a special rapporteur for human rights in Hong Kong (or both).
Neither is likely to change the situation overnight, but each could provide some semblance of support or protection to Hong Kongers.
As a former UN special rapporteur, I know that both models have their advantages and disadvantages. A special rapporteur, appointed through a resolution by the UN Human Rights Council, focuses on exposing human-rights violations and could help to achieve a kind of accountability through transparency.
A special envoy is typically less vocal on human rights, but might be able to advance a political or diplomatic solution.
Though China would resist — and the country has considerable clout — UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres could appoint an envoy on his own initiative.
The idea of creating a special envoy has wide support, including from Patten. The chairs of the foreign affairs committees in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK have written a letter calling for Guterres to heed this call. He should listen — and do so fast.
The conflict between Chinese authorities and Hong Kongers continues to escalate, and international action has become urgent.
Thirty-one years after the Tiananmen Square massacre, Hong Kong is facing the real threat of Tiananmen 2.0. The UN should not wait until all that is left to be done is clean the blood off the streets.
Yanghee Lee is former UN special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar and former chair of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations