The European Parliament last week passed a nonbinding resolution condemning the deterioration of human rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, and called for a review of the territory’s WTO membership. The resolution signals Hong Kong’s diminishing role as a non-sovereign entity.
What is most striking is the dead silence of the territory’s leadership. Anxiety and insecurity best describe the mood of the ruling elite as they contemplate the end of Hong Kong’s glory days as a financial hub.
In the past, senior Hong Kong officials were quick to criticize the West for its hypocrisy and failings to project a nationalistic image. When former US president Donald Trump revoked the territory’s special trade status in June 2020, Hong Kong authorities used patriotic rhetoric to downplay its devastating effects.
The world is questioning Hong Kong’s non-sovereign status because of its deteriorating autonomy and rising frustrations against political injustices.
China’s national security arrangement has rapidly changed Hong Kong’s governing order since 2020. It suspended the “one country, two systems” experiment that was set to expire in 2047. As the scope of the security laws continue to evolve, Hong Kongers have experienced a profound change in daily life.
People see hostile government interventions in shutting down civic organizations and media companies, persecuting democracy advocates and journalists, and censoring academia and dissent. The forced closure of the Apple Daily and other independent media sent a chilling message to the press to self-censor reporting on corruption, abuses of power and police brutality.
Without legal protection for everyone, local businesses, universities and civic sectors are finding it impossible to operate in a free and open environment.
Another layer of change comes from below. Hong Kongers appreciate the benefits of enduring bilateral links with the EU and other nations with respect to consular affairs, visa arrangements and legal services, as well as cultural and educational exchanges.
For years, Hong Kong sought “paradiplomacy” in the international domain, with memberships in the WTO, the WHO, APEC, IMF and the Financial Task Force on Money Laundering. The territory has numerous economic and trade offices worldwide to facilitate free-trade discussion, lobby foreign officials and promote its business interests abroad.
Keeping Hong Kong’s non-sovereign integrity has made the territory what it is today: a vibrant financial hub thanks to its openness, transparent regulatory environment, and commitment to the rule of law and civic liberties.
Yet everything has changed in this new era of securitization. Local officials perceive regular political, economic and social matters through the lens of national security, and employ extrajudicial measures against Hong Kongers who try to exercise their rights. When the national security order overrides the rules-based governance structure, Hong Kong is no different from any Chinese territory.
Because longstanding ties with foreign countries only benefit the privileged few at the expense of everyone, there is widespread support to end Hong Kong’s official participation in international bodies and to sanction those officials responsible for smothering the territory’s freedom.
Europe has taken the lead in debating the merits of treating Hong Kong as a subnational entity in global trade. Taiwan and other allies might follow in the same footsteps.
In light of this international effort to adjust Hong Kong’s special status, only time will tell whether the territory’s leadership can demonstrate significant progress in democratic governance and human rights protection.
Joseph Tse-hei Lee is a professor of history at Pace University in New York City.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
RSS