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.
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
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS