Seventeen years after the handover of Hong Kong from Britain to China, the political future of the territory hangs in the balance. The city can continue down a path that will lead to a fully democratic political system, or Beijing can thwart its democratic development and eventually run Hong Kong like just another Chinese city.
All signs indicate that Beijing plans to tighten its grip. As increasingly restive Hong Kongers protest this summer against Beijing’s interference, the international community, particularly Britain, the former colonial power, has a moral and legal obligation to support their will for democracy and autonomy. London should demand that Beijing live up to its agreements and back off.
On July 1st, an estimated half a million people took to the Hong Kong streets to protest Beijing’s meddling. In the days before, nearly 800,000 Hong Kongers participated in an informal vote run by a pro-democracy group in support of electing the city’s next leader by democratic means, a prospect Beijing has all but ruled out.
In recent months, the Chinese government has made clear that it intends to renege on a promise to allow Hong Kongers “universal suffrage” to freely elect their next leader by insisting Beijing must vet the candidates for “patriotism.” But it was the release in June of a strongly worded policy paper in which Beijing claimed ultimate authority over Hong Kong that galvanized locals against the mainland’s interference.
The so-called white paper says the “high degree of autonomy” Hong Kong was promised in the 1984 Joint Declaration — signed by Britain and China when Beijing was trying to assure the world it would leave Hong Kong alone after the end of British colonial rule — is not “full autonomy.” In blatant disregard of Margaret Thatcher’s signature on the Joint Declaration, the white paper claims that Beijing can interpret Hong Kong law as it sees fit. The territory’s autonomy, the paper says, derives “solely from the authorization of the central leadership.”
Perhaps most troubling, the document likens Beijing’s authority over Hong Kong to how it rules other autonomous regions in China — a worrying prospect for anyone familiar with how the leadership treats the people of Tibet and Xinjiang.
The situation should not be this bleak. As early as 1979, in meetings with British officials, Deng Xiaoping said Hong Kongers should “put their hearts at ease” about Chinese rule. The Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, largely fulfilled the legal commitments made in the Joint Declaration. Hong Kong courts were authorized to interpret the Basic Law within the scope of Hong Kong’s autonomy, while foreign affairs and defense were to be handled by Beijing. Most importantly, “universal suffrage” was to be implemented.
Now, the white paper refers to Hong Kong’s judges as “administrators” and emphasizes their role in guarding national security.
Cracks appeared soon after the handover. First, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee effectively overturned a 1999 decision by Hong Kong’s highest court in a case about local residency rights, raising great concern about Hong Kong’s judicial independence. Later, Beijing made central government approval a requirement for any reforms to the Legislative Council election process. And over the past decade the subservient Hong Kong government has tried to push through unpopular national security laws and policies on patriotic education (all abandoned in the face of mass public protests). Meanwhile, a form of crony capitalism is widely thought to be creeping across the border.
Still, Beijing finally agreed in 2007 to allow universal suffrage to elect the chief executive in 2017. Yet in the last year Beijing has insisted that nominees must “love China and love Hong Kong” — language that is code to exclude the democrats. Locals feel they have no other choice but to take the cause of democracy to the streets.
The group Occupy Central with Love and Peace has threatened a mass act of civil disobedience in the Central financial district if the government does not put forth fair democracy proposals that meet international standards. To show support for its position, Occupy Central organized last month’s vote in which citizens were asked to choose from three democratic proposals for nominating chief executive candidates. The next protest, its organizers say, could happen as early as August if government proposals, due out this week, aim to block real democratic reform.
Who will stand up for Hong Kong? Major international banks and accounting firms are toeing Beijing’s line, saying publicly that mass protests will disrupt the city’s economy and threaten the peace. Except for the usual expression of support for “credible” elections, Washington and other foreign governments have largely remained silent on Beijing’s latest moves.
A special onus falls on Britain, whose flag some Hong Kongers waved during the July 1 demonstrations. One can only wonder if Prime Minister David Cameron, who recently signed a group of major trade deals with China during Prime Minister Li Keqiang’s visit to London, will ever weigh in to uphold his country’s commitment to Hong Kong’s people. He should consider the words of his predecessor, John Major, who sought to assure a wary world before Hong Kong was handed over to the Chinese.
“If in the future there were any suggestion of a breach of the Joint Declaration, we would mobilize the international community and pursue every legal or other avenue open to us,” Prime Minister Major said back in 1996, a year before the handover. It’s clear that time has come.
Michael C. Davis is a law professor at the University of Hong Kong who specializes in constitutional development and human rights.