Professor Crémer’s article is exceptionally well reasoned and well written, and we encourage you to read it for yourself. Two versions are referenced in the links below: the one from PROMARKET mentioned above, and an earlier version, which had been posted as a blog on Professor Crémer’s website. The latter includes an interesting exchange between the professor and a former student.
Among the many things we have left out of this short abstract is Professor Crémer’s complaint about the EU’s initial, relatively mild response to this new Chinese law. But that part of the discussion may soon be overtaken. The South China Morning Post, for example, recently reported that the EU is considering new restrictions on certain exports to China as a signal of its displeasure over the new law.
And that is just the tip of the iceberg. The larger point is that the world at large – much of it anyway – is now seriously and comprehensively re-evaluating its relationship with China. The new national security law is part of that re-evaluation but only part. There are a host of contentious issues. Extradition policies, Huawei and 5G, disputed islands in the South China Sea, Taiwan, and the WTO are some of the many others. On that last point, the WTO,
Peter Carl
, a former Director General for Trade at the European Commission, published an article last week in which he suggested
the world may need to recreate the WTO, only this time without China.
Others have whispered similar thoughts, but the fact of Mr. Carl’s article speaks volumes.
***
We scratch our head in wonder. Putting aside the WTO issues, why, we ask ourselves, is China provoking so many countries over so many issues? And why now? In some respects, it seems out of character. If there is any persistent theme in China’s discourse with the world, it is China’s insistence that it will not tolerate interference in its internal affairs. Why then did China’s officials include Article 38 in the new national security law? Surely, they knew that their claim to govern speech in foreign countries flies in the face of the doctrine of non-interference in the domestic affairs of others.
But the really big question is the timing of everything. We in the West have for years been indoctrinated with the notion that China plays the long game, that China’s leaders, inheritors of four thousand years of civilization, know time is on their side. So why is China challenging virtually everyone now? The Hong Kong issue illustrates the point. Under the terms of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, China’s obligation to accord special privileges to Hong Kong only has 27 years to run. In 2047 China’s international obligation to “one country, two systems,” comes to an end. One has to ask, why did not China, the country of “The 100-Year Marathon,” simply wait?
And yet, on issue after issue, China has decided it cannot wait. So, this period of lockdowns, protests, and COVID-19 is further exacerbated by mounting controversies among the world’s great powers. It’s a tough time for optimists. But maybe, just maybe, if these conflicts had to come, better now than later.
