Once a world-class territory for entrepreneurs and investors, Hong Kong is now in trouble. Its full integration into the Chinese autocratic system began with the implementation of the National Security Law last year.
Proclaiming to safeguard security without deterring investment, Beijing has imposed a top-down authoritarian rule, dictated public discourse with state-run media, and replaced civil service professionals with ideological loyalists and independent judges with pliable cronies.
The new security regime authorizes the local government and police to employ violence to silence dissent and elicit obedience from Hong Kongers. Even though Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥) and her cronies are firmly in power, they are morally bankrupt and callous, losing the legitimacy that they desperately need to govern.
Much attention has focused lately on the prosecution of veteran democracy advocates and conscientious journalists, the purge of popularly elected opposition lawmakers, and a crackdown on press freedom. However, very little has been said about Hong Kong’s diminishing status as a non-sovereign subnational entity.
Hong Kong’s autonomy under China’s “one country, two systems” framework allows for special treatment in trade relations, export controls, sociocultural and educational exchanges. This unique status laid the foundation for bilateral treaties with the US and other countries with respect to consular affairs, taxation arrangements, aviation and extradition, as well as legal services.
Furthermore, Hong Kong has pursued para-diplomacy, holding memberships in the WTO, the WHO, APEC, IMF and the Financial Task Force on Money Laundering. In sports, Hong Kong remains active in the International Olympic Committee and FIFA.
The territory still has dozens of Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices in major trading nations to lobby foreign governments, facilitate free-trade agreements and advance its commercial interests abroad.
However, when the new security order overrides the common law system, Hong Kong is constitutionally no different from any Chinese city. Should Hong Kong continue to receive separate treatment as opposed to other parts of China? Should Taiwan, the US, the UK, the EU and the rest of the world alter their bilateral agreements?
Should the West implement the sanctions against Hong Kong Police Force for human rights breaches? Should global firms and non-governmental organizations review the new dangers posed by the evolving crisis?
Another worrisome problem concerns the strategic role of Hong Kong amid intensifying rivalries between China and the world. Given its proximity to China, Hong Kong used to be a vibrant international financial hub, thanks to its openness, transparent regulatory environment, and commitment to the rule of law and civic liberties.
In the Maoist era, Beijing adhered to the principle of “long-term planning and full utilization,” and used Hong Kong to bypass international restrictions after the Korean War. The territory enabled China to pursue illicit trade, earn foreign currency, and acquire medical and technological resources.
During the 1980s and 1990s, Hong Kong contributed tremendously to China’s economic reforms. Since China joined the WTO in 2001, the territory’s common law system has enabled many state-owned enterprises to attract foreign investments for sustainable development.
This history has been a model for other nations to treat Hong Kong separately from China and give it better terms. Hence, maintaining Hong Kong’s autonomy is beneficial to China’s national and local interests.
In a polarized world where Hong Kong is compelled to side with China, it is bound to lose its neutrality. Knowing that China continues to use the territory to access the outside world, the US has begun to restrict the transfer of international capital and sensitive technologies from Hong Kong to the mainland.
The new security arrangement has changed the rules of the game. Most importantly, it suspends the “one country, two systems” experiment that was widely thought to expire in 2047. When Hong Kong no longer offers the same legal protections and civil liberties that were once integral parts of autonomy, the world has to review and revise bilateral linkages and relations.
Coming to grips with this hostile international environment is crucial to recognizing the costs of violating the autonomous constitutional status.
For Hong Kong to survive and thrive, its political elites must return to a rules-based governance structure, end widespread police and judiciary abuses, and communicate with pro-democracy opposition groups and the civic sector.
Joseph Tse-hei Lee is professor of history at Pace University in New York City.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS