 |
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2018
Click
here for last Wednesday's quote from WTO Deputy Director-General Alan Wolff.
|
HONG KONG AND THE RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED
"[I]f it - [Mainland China] - can walk away with impunity [from] its international treaty obligations to Hong Kong, then, I think, the rest of the world should be worried about its commitment to its other international treaty obligations."
Anson Chan
February 2, 2018
|
|
Anson Chan is a strong advocate for democracy and a former Chief Secretary of Hong Kong, head of the civil service. She was in New York earlier this month where she spoke at an event hosted by the Asia Society.
Mrs. Chan was a central figure in the whole handover process, and in the pictures from the 1997 handover ceremony she can be seen standing prominently between the British and Chinese officials who were on stage. In her presentation at the Asia Society, she talked about her thoughts during the handover ceremony and her experience in the years just after. She said:
I can say that in the four years that I remained as Chief Secretary after the handover, Beijing was scrupulous in observing the promises that they had made to the people of Hong Kong. [This was] that, as a Special Administrative Region of China, Hong Kong will enjoy a high degree of autonomy. It will have its own separate capitalist system. The socialist system on the Mainland will not apply. And, other than foreign affairs and defense, Hong Kong will enjoy a high degree of autonomy.
Things are different today, as she explained:
Well, this year we're celebrating the 21st anniversary of Hong Kong's handover to China. And where do we stand as regards one country two systems? If you measure one country two systems by the usual yardsticks, which [are]: rule of law, basic rights and freedoms -- particularly freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, and basic rights and freedoms -- I am sorry to say that all of these are under pressure.
In her short but powerful opening remarks and in the extended Q&A that followed, Mrs. Chan elaborated on this concern, commenting on Beijing interference in everything from Hong Kong's electoral processes to its judicial system to education. And indeed, there is a sense in which Beijing (almost) makes the same argument. Last June, just before the 20th anniversary of the handover ceremony,
Lu Kang from China's foreign ministry talked to reporters about the status of the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, the document that was to govern the transfer of sovereignty. Mr. Lu said:
Now Hong Kong has returned to the motherland's embrace after 20 years, the Sino-British joint declaration, as a historical document, no longer has any practical significance, and it is not at all binding for the central government's management over Hong Kong. The UK has no sovereignty, no power to rule, and no power to supervise Hong Kong after the handover.
This brings us back to the question of whether other countries - not just the UK but the U.S. and the world community writ large - have any legitimate stake in the future of Hong Kong, and specifically in whether the promise of one-country, two-system has any further meaning. It was supposed to last at least until 2047. Is it a dead letter already? This is the issue Anson Chan was addressing in today's featured quote. Here is a bit more of what she said on that topic:
Both sides [the UK and China[] put their signature to this document [the Joint Declaration]. And it was on this basis that China welcomed - and indeed actively solicited the support of the international community - to support Hong Kong's handover on this basis. So it is, in my view, a bit ridiculous for Mainland Chinese officials today to claim that anybody who speaks out about the erosion of one-country, two systems and the chipping away of Hong Kong's life style and core values is somehow foreign interference. It is nothing of the sort. Because of your own [America's] interest in Hong Kong, you have a legitimate right to be concerned and to ensure that Beijing keeps to its promises. Because if it can walk away with impunity [from] its international treaty obligations to Hong Kong, then, I think, the rest of the world should be worried about its commitment to all its other international treaty obligations, to your country and to the European Union countries, to the UK, etc. etc.
|
We should note that the comments of Lu Kang mentioned above and the idea that the Joint Declaration is now a document of only historical significance did not go unnoticed in London.
Boris Johnson, Britain's foreign secretary, said in response that:
Britain's commitment to Hong Kong - enshrined in the Joint Declaration with China - is just as strong today as it was 20 years ago.
Clearly that was the right thing to say, but just as clearly the burden of maintaining meaningful democratic freedoms in Hong Kong will depend as much upon the actions of the world's other leading countries as it will on the UK. That perhaps is why Mrs. Chan repeatedly referred to legislation that Senator
Marco Rubio (R FL) introduced last year This was
The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2017, S. 417. Among other things, it would require the U.S. State Department to certify annually that Hong Kong is sufficiently autonomous to justify separate treatment from China.
Mrs. Chan is a courageous woman and a Hong Kong patriot. She is also practical enough, we think, to recognize that the world will not come to Hong Kong's aid for the sake of Hong Kong alone. And so she put her appeal at the Asia Society on a broader level. The question for the world she said is not simply what will happen to Hong Kong? No, the question for the world is, what kind of China do you want to deal with? The reverberations of that question will be with us for a while.
We shall end this entry with an historical footnote. A member of the audience, an overseas Chinese man, talked about the cynicism of the Brits. There was no universal suffrage for Hong Kong while they were in charge, he said, asking in effect, why should Hong Kong have it now? The first part of Mrs. Chan's response was important, but hardly new. The second part brought to light some history that, for at least, was new.
She said:
I am not an apologist for Great Britain and everything it did or did not do in Hong Kong. ... There is one essential difference that I must point out. Britain is a parliamentary democracy. And one of the two best legacies that they left to Hong Kong people was the rule of law and a truly independent judiciary and ... most of the basic rights and freedoms that you would associated with a fully-fledged democracy, minus "one man, one vote." That is their legacy in Hong Kong, and that is the very foundation and the cornerstone of Hong Kong's success.
It is also a fact -- and this much became apparent in the official documents that were recently released after the usual embargo of thirty years or whatnot, in which correspondence between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Beijing indicated that, from time to time, even in the 60s and the 70s, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London attempted to introduce democracy and free elections in Hong Kong -- only to be told by Beijing, including by Zhou Enlai, then Prime Minister, that, under no circumstances will they tolerate a democratically elected Hong Kong. ... They saw that as a first step towards independence for Hong Kong. And they [Beijing] made it clear that if Britain insisted nevertheless on going ahead, they [would] not rule out the possibility that they would take Hong Kong back by force.
|
At the Asia Society is a link to the video recording of Anson Chan's remarks at the Asia Society in New York on February 2. This was the source for today's featured quote and much of the rest that is here.
An Historical Document is a Reuters report from June 2017. This includes Lu Kang's assertion that the Joint Declaration is a non-binding historical document as well as Boris Johnson's response.
S. 417 takes you to the Library of Congress report on the Hong Kong relasted legislation introduced last year by Senator Rubio.
|
| TO GET THE TTALK DAILY QUOTE IN YOUR INBOX
Or Other GBD Notices, click below.
|
|
©2017 The Global Business Dialogue, Inc.
1717 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1025
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 463-5074
R. K. Morris, Editor
Joanne Thornton, Associate Editor
|
|
|
|
|
|
