Chinas latest move to impose a new security law for Hong Kong has exposed Britains weakness on the international stage. But now all eyes are on the US response as the future of the semi-autonomous territory is once again caught in the geopolitical wrangling between the worlds dominant powers.
Advertising
Read more
On December 21, 1984 – just days after she signed a historic treaty with China on Hong Kongs future status – British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was asked how did she really “feel” about the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
Thatcher was in Hong Kong, where the reactions to the agreement were less ebullient than in Beijing, where the British prime minister had toasted her Chinese counterpart at a champagne ceremony in the Great Hall of the People following the signing of the historic deal. Small, but symbolic protests had greeted Thatchers arrival on the British territory hugging Chinas southern coast, with demonstrators denouncing the “sell-out” of the people of Hong Kong.
So when Thatcher was asked about the treaty setting the terms for Chinas 1997 takeover, she was on the defensive. “I feel we have done a good job for the people of Hong Kong,” she told reporters. “Just consider what sort of questions you would be asking me now had there been no agreement and a totally unknown future.”
More than 35 years later, the international treaty, which was registered at the UN, establishing the “one country, two systems” principle, is back under the spotlight.
Last week, when China announced plans to impose a new national security law for Hong Kong that, critics say, breaches the territorys autonomous status, the 1984 Joint Declaration was a talking point on the news agenda.
“One point that many, many Hong Kong people have been rather angry about is that the [British] Foreign Office, and the entire UK government, should be opposing more strongly the way China has been breaching the provisions of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. China has effectively declared that particular document null, void, it doesnt serve any purpose anymore,” Claudia Mo, a member of Hong Kongs Legislative Council, told the BBC over the weekend.
Its a view echoed by Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong who handed over the territory to China in 1997. “I think the Hong Kong people have been betrayed by China, which has proved once again that you cant trust it,” said Patten in an interview with the British daily, The Times. “The British government should make it clear that what we are seeing is a complete destruction of the Joint Declaration.”
Death sentence for Hong Kongs freedoms
Patten has led a group of more than 230 prominent parliamentarians and policymakers in 25 countries – including former prime ministers and foreign ministers – who have signed a letter decrying “the unilateral introduction of national security legislation by Beijing in Hong Kong” and calling on governments to “unite to say that this flagrant breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration cannot be tolerated.”
Responding to the initiative by Hong Kongs last British governor, Dorian Malovic, Asia editor of French daily La Croix, and author of several books on China, conceded, “Its better than nothing, but it sounds a little desperate. Chris Patten tried his best to push through a more democratic system as much as possible before 1997, but he failed,” noted Malovic in an interview with FRANCE 24.
Back in 1984, the news coverage of the Joint Declaration focused on Britain's failure to take more steps before the handover to secure democracy for Hong Kongs citizens. These days, an agreement once regarded as a weak compromise is cited in world capitals as a demonstration of Beijings disregard for legally binding treaties and the international communitys failure to hold China accountable for its breaches.
Beijing maintains the new law – which bans treason, subversion and sedition – is necessary after months of often-violent pro-democracy protests last year. Chinese authorities portray the protests as a foreign-backed plot to destabilise the motherland and have warned that other nations have no right to interfere in how the international business hub is run.
Critics, however, say the new security measure contravenes the Basic Law, Hong Kongs mini-constitution adopted under the terms of the Joint Declaration. Article 23 of the Basic Law, states that the “Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central Peoples Government”.
An earlier attempt to pass a national security act was dropped in 2003 when it became clear the bill would not pass Hong Kongs Legislative Council – popularly dubbed “LegCo” – following massive protests.
Beijing has long wanted a security law that would curtail dissent and protests in Hong Kong. But this time, the process adopted by Chinese authorities, by submitting a draft bill on the opening session of the National Peoples Congress in Beijing last week, caught everyone by surprise.
“It was a shock. It came directly from Beijing, a draft law before the National Peoples Congress is basically rubber-stamping a communist party directive. What frightened lawyers and activists is that its a violation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law thats disregarding Hong Kongs LegCo,” explained Malovic. “Thats a huge breach of the semi-autonomy of Hong Kong. Its a death sentence for Hong Kongs freedoms.”
Defying Covid-19 social distancing measures, protesters took to the streets in Hong Kong on Sunday as law enforcement officials braced for further unrest as the security bill makes its way through an unprecedented legislative process. The National Peoples Congress (NPC) is expected to approve the bill on Thursday after which it moves to the NPCs Standing Committee for approval.
The timing of the move was also noteworthy. “This came as foreign countries are busy coping with the coronavirus and are not looking into the Hong Kong situation. Beijing is giving a signal, we dont care about anything coming from foreign countries. China knows its strong enough to do what it wants with Hong Kong,” said Malovic.
Freedom, money, but no democracy
Asian and Western democracies have condemned Chinas moves to implement the new security law. Following a muted initial reaction, British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab on Friday issued a joint statement with his Australian and Canadian counterparts that declared, “We are deeply concerned at proposals for introducing legislation related to national security in Hong Kong”.
The statement also noted that the “legally binding Joint Declaration, signed by China and the UK, sets out that Hong Kong will have a high degree of autonomy”. But it offered no details or warnings of action if China breached its legally binding agreement.
The response by Hong Kongs former colonial power failed to impress pro-democracy activists and analysts. “The UK has done very, very little, even nothing concretely to support people in Hong Kong, to support democracy in Hong Kong,” said Malovic. “Britain is in a mess in the shadow of Brexit. The thinking in London has been, we need Chinese investments, we need deals with the US, we dont need Europe. Hong Kong people are aware of the cowardice of Britain, theyre under no illusions.”
Hasty, ill-planned exits that set the stage for crises and conflicts for future post-colonial generations have been the legacy of British colonialism. But Malovic notes that the people of Hong Kong also share some responsibility for a long-feared scenario. “The British were very smart. Everybody was free in Hong Kong except there was no democracy – and people didnt care. I was in Hong Kong a lot in those days and I used to tell my friends people selfishly only care about making money.”
Political consciousness emerged in Hong Kong after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, according to Malovic. But by then, the Joint Declaration underpinning Hong Kongs handover and future administration was already signed, and Beijing proved to be an unyielding negotiating partner on democratic protections such as universal suffrage for Hong Kongs residents.
British diplomats have acknowledged the negotiations over enshrining democratic principles that would secure Hong Kong were difficult since London was struggling to maintain close diplomatic and trade ties with Beijing.
"In a case like this in Hong Kong where there is such a disparity in strength between the two sides, between Britain and China, you go for the best you can get, and I take the simple view that half a loaf is better than no bread," Percy Cradock, the UKs chief negotiator and a former British ambassador to China, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
A double-edged sword
The onus of international responsibility, as ever, falls on the US and with it, the criticisms of failing to respond or overreaction, as the case may be.
Washingtons reaction has been tougher than Londons, with the US forcefully “condemning” Chinas move and urging “Beijing to reconsider its disastrous proposal”. President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has threatened to respond “very strongly” if China follows through with the new law.
The US also has a new law, the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which was passed by Congress in November amid last years pro-democracy protests. The law requires the US State Department to determine whether Hong Kong maintains a sufficient degree of autonomy to justify it retaining its special trade status.
“That would be a blow for Hong Kong if the US raised tariffs if it cRead More – Source
[contf] [contfnew] 
france24
[contfnewc] [contfnewc]
