Canary in the mine shaft: China’s agenda for Asia and beyond on display in the crushing of freedom in Hong Kong

(Washington, D.C.): On Monday, the Chinese Communist Party announced that it would deny Hong Kong universal suffrage in its 2007 election for chief executive. Under the Party’s edict Hong Kong will also be denied the opportunity to hold free elections for more than half the seats in its Legislative Council in 2008.

Both decisions flagrantly violate Hong Kong’s Basic Law, legislation arising from and codifying a solemn international undertaking the PRC gave Great Britain in 1984 when the latter agreed to turn over its last colony to Chinese control. The hostility they demonstrate for democracy and the indifference they suggest for British, U.S. or other international support for its survival on territory claimed by China is an ominous warning of still worse to come at the PRC’s hands in the region, and possibly elsewhere.

It is, consequently, imperative that the Bush Administration respond in a clear and resolute way to Beijing’s latest bid to crush democracy in Hong Kong. After all, if there are no costs to the PRC associated with its dismantling of the Basic Law, it is predictable that China will be emboldened to act ever-more aggressively towards the other Chinese democratic experiment, Taiwan.

For its part, Congress should review the Hong Kong Policy Act to ensure that China incurs appreciable penalties for undermining Hong Kong’s democratic and capitalist principles. It should also encourage the executive branch to initiate closer economic and security relations with Taiwan, a key ally in the region, now under greater threat than ever from the mainland.

These were among the points made in prescient testimony last week before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Roger W. Robinson, Jr., the Chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission and that panel’s Vice Chairman, Richard D’Amato. As the following excerpts make clear, the congressionally mandated, bipartisan Commission’s leaders warned that Beijing’s behavior towards Hong Kong is just one indication of the serious problems we are likely to confront from the People’s Republic in the years ahead. Their full testimony is available on the Center for Security Policy’s web site (www.CenterforSecurityPolicy.org/) and anticipates the analysis and findings of the Commission’s next, important report expected to be issued in May.

More than 50,000 American citizens live and work in Hong Kong. Over 1,100 American firms operate there, and the United States has more than $38.5 billion in investments in the city. These direct interests alone demand that the U.S. Government keep a close eye on developments in Hong Kong; but there is much more at stake.

How Beijing lives up to the promise of the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 and the Hong Kong Basic Law of 1990 tells us much about China’s direction. We need to look at Hong Kong to gauge whether China is evolving into the more open and tolerant power that China’s leadership would like us to believe is unfolding. Alternatively, are China’s leaders bent on “nipping in the bud” any domestic call for democratic change – even in highly autonomous Hong Kong where such change is anticipated under China’s own laws – that is not of their own making.

In response to popular calls for direct elections in 2007 for the Chief Executive and 2008 for all of the Legislative Council, as allowed under the Basic Law, the PRC’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee has made some telling and worrisome moves in recent weeks. First, on March 26, the Standing Committee decided on its own to intervene in the question of whether and how changes to the methods of selecting the Hong Kong Chief Executive and forming the Legislative Council could be made. The decision of the Standing Committee to self-initiate an interpretation of the Basic Law was itself a blow to Hong Kong’s separate legal and political systems.

The interpretation issued on April 6 was an additional setback for Hong Kong democratic aspirations. It reinforced the message that no changes would be made without the central authorities’ approval, at the beginning and the end of the process. A report by the Chief Executive to the Standing Committee would have to start any process of change, and the Standing Committee would then give direction as to whether and how changes should be made. No initiative would be allowed to rest in the hands of Hong Kong’s legislature, which was ruled ineligible to present any draft bill, even on implementing changes decided by Beijing.

The Chief Executive’s immediate action to submit a report to the Standing Committee, on April 15, stating there is indeed a need for change, has not been taken as a sign of progress among advocates of greater democracy in Hong Kong. Rather, the principles laid down in the report – reiterating the absolute authority of the Standing Committee in all decisions relating to Hong Kong’s Basic Law and elections; emphasizing the need for a strong “executive-led” government – suggest that the fix is in.

We hope we are wrong. We hope Beijing will recognize that its own reputation as a modernizing power is at stake in Hong Kong; that not just a handful of local democratic activists and “troublemakers” care about what happens, but that the United States cares, and is paying attention.

Under the Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 [22 USC 66], the U.S. Goverment has an obligation to assess whether Hong Kong’s “high degree of autonomy” and the solemn promise by Beijing to respect Hong Kong’s governing under the “one country, two systems” formula is genuine or a charade. Hong Kong’s future autonomy was set out in an international agreement, the Sino-British Joint Declaration; granted by China’s National People’s Congress; and legislated in the Basic Law. It may be true that what the PRC Government giveth, they may taketh away. But when Hong Kong’s autonomy is diminished by the direct action of the central authorities, the United States is obliged to take notice and consider its policy options.

Directly invoking provisions of the Hong Kong Policy Act to suspend certain aspects of U.S.-Hong Kong bilateral relations is an option which may be considered. If the United States were to end its special treatment of Hong Kong in some important areas – such as air services, customs treatment, immigration quotas, visa issuance, export controls – the principal pain would be felt in Hong Kong, however, not in Beijing.

The Congress and Administration should continue to let the Chinese leadership know that Beijing’s moves to limit Hong Kong’s autonomy and democratic aspirations are not in any party’s long-term interest. And that U.S.-China relations will be adversely affected.