China has once more risen its degree of control over Hong Kong confirming that it does not intend to lower its grip on the autonomous regions thereby cutting the hopes that the latter will ever become an independent fully-fledged democratic state. This week nine pro-democracy activists who took part in last year’s banned Commemoration of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre have been arrested in Hong Kong and sentenced to jail for a period between six and ten months. Three others have received suspended sentences because charged with having joined an illegal assembly or having motivated others to take part in it. This is only the last of many repressing actions with which Beijing has been showing the upper hand on the autonomous region of Hong Kong ever since the British Government handed it over in 1997 (BBC, 2021).
A glimpse at Hong Kong’s troubled history of occupation
Protests in Hong Kong ever since 2019 have not been happening in a vacuum. Indeed, they have been enfolding within a clear-cut context with reasons that stretch back decades and that are helpful to explain what has been going on in the last years (BBC, 2020). Hong Kong has been characterized by a turbulent history as well as witnessing foreign occupation ever since the third century B.C. which brought the country to never obtain full independence, but instead to remain a territory under the control of foreign actors. Thus, protests and demonstrations of the last couple of years can be seen as a direct consequence of its history and, specifically, of its endless subjugation to and control from foreign powers.
The first external occupation that Hong Kong went through was the Chinese one in the third century B.C. during the Qin Dynasty which managed to keep the former under its control for about 2,000 years. Honk Kong was still under Chinese control during the first Opium war in 1839 but soon after, between 1842 and 1898 the British Empire slowly began to acquire control of the three main regions that form present-day Hong Kong, namely Hong Kong Island, the Kowloon Peninsula and the New Territories, which make up the majority of the land area of Hong Kong. Not yet satisfied, the British Empire ignited the Second Opium War with China in 1856, which ended four year later in 1860 with the Convention of Beijing which obliged China to cede the Kowloon Peninsula south of a dividing line called Boundary Street. In 1898 the Second Convention of Peking established the lease to the British Empire of the rest of the county, namely the New Territories between Boundary Street and Shenzhen River (the line nowadays separating mainland China from Hong Kong). This agreement was set to have a duration of 99 years, meaning that Britain was expected to return the region to China in 1997 (Little, 2019)
From 1942 Hong Kong witnessed Japanese occupation, which made it collapse into conditions of famine and hyperinflation leading to many civilians being executed, tortured, raped, or mutilated. This state continued until 1945, when Hong Kong was freed by joint British and Chinese troops. However, while several occupied countries in Asia, Africa and the Americas managed to win independence from Japanese and European control after WW2, Britain continued to have the upper hand on Hong Kong. It finally happened on July 1997 sovereignty over the whole colony of Hong Kong was transferred back to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In fact, even if the British Empire was granted perpetual sovereignity over Hong Kong Island as well as over Kowloon, the former decided to hand them back alongside the New Territories as a continuous ownership of these small territories was not a fruitful choice neither economically nor politically (Sherlock, 1997).
However, the return of Hong Kong under the power of Beijing did not come without requests. The Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 established that, under Chinese control, Hong Kong would have maintained – for at least 50 years – the same social and economic conditions that it benefitted from under the English Empire. This modus operandi has been called “one country, two systems” meaning that, while being assimilated by China, the latter would not have imposed a government on Hong Kong but would have declared it a special administration region of the People’s Republic of China. Moreover, it would have further be characterised by a capitalist economy and enjoyed a high degree of autonomy except for foreign and defence matters. The population would continue to have their basic rights, such as the right to speech, press, assembly, and religious belief, guaranteed. Thanks to this, Hong Kong can nowadays boast an own legal system as well as national borders alongside the guarantee of some basic human rights, which are often negated to their Chinese counterparts (BBC, 2020).
Things are changing and promises are being broken
Although Hong Kongers still enjoy some liberties that are not even closely allowed in mainland China, such freedom and rights are widely believed to be debilitating. Indeed, ever since the handover in 1997 Beijing has severely and repetitively trump its promise to allow Hong Kong a certain degree of independence and liberties under the “one country, two systems” through a series of measures aiming at enhancing China’s control in ways that it undermines Hong Kong’s autonomy and rule of law. Protests against this have led China to even further restrictive measures. Thus, the malcontent of 2019 can be understood not only in terms of a rebellion fuelled by the Hong Kongers’ tiredness of being constantly under a foreign domination and oppression – which impedes them to enjoy full independence and democracy – but also as a reaction to the breach of China’s promise to actually consider Hong Kong as an independent region where fundamental rights and liberties are actually safeguarded.
In recent years rights groups have charged China with the accusation of interfering in Hong Kong way too invasively. They referred specifically “legal rulings that have disqualified pro-democracy legislators, and the disappearance of five Hong Kong booksellers, and a tycoon – who all eventually re-emerged in custody in China. There are also accusations that press, and academic freedoms have been deteriorating. […] China effectively expelled several US journalists – but also prohibited them from working in Hong Kong. [Moreover] the public broadcaster RTHK has come under pressure from Hong Kong’s government, first for broadcasting an interview with the World Health Organization about Taiwan, and then for targeting police in its satirical news show “Headliner”” (BBC, 2020). In 2003, more than 500,000 people took to the street to protest against a controversial security bill which, among others, forbade treason, secession, sedition, and subversion against the Chinese government and was accused to threat political, religious and media freedoms. Additionally, the bill was said to empower the Hong Kong Government to outlaw groups already banned in China, to render peaceful demonstrations illegal, and to curtail the rights of journalists and non-governmental organisations (BBC, 2003). In 2012 the Hong Kong’s government tried to change the educational plan of schools with the aim of enhancing Chinese national identity (Maizland and Albert, 2021)
However, China’s breach of independence and freedom for Hong Kong is best described by the real inner functioning of the latter’s government, which is “hideously complicated” (Kirby, 2019). The Joint Declaration and the Hong Kong Basic Law jointly affirm that Hong Kong is a self-administered special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China. However, as the author explains, provisions have been included about the possibility for the Chinese government to appoint Hog Kong’s chief executive “on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally.” In practical terms, the chief executive is selected by the election committee which is composed by Beijing advocates. Hence, whichever candidate wins will always be a candidate indirectly selected by China. Hong Kong’s Basic Law goes even further and claims that “ultimate aim is to elect the chief executive through universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee.” From a democratic point of view, this would mean that to each person corresponds one vote. In 2014 Beijing held its word about granting Hong Kongers universal suffrage, however, the chief executive candidate should be chosen from a list approved beforehand by a pro-Beijing nominating committee. One more, China has the upper hand on Hong Kong. This brought to the 2014 Umbrella Revolution against non-democratic elections and, hence, against China’s preferred winning candidate, Carrie Lam (Kirby, 2019).
This intense presence into Hong Kong’s political matters may be considered the source of the pro-democracy, anti-government protests that have crossed Hong Kong from 2019 onwards. What began as a target protest in June 2019 rapidly escalated into a fight for the future of the county. Demonstrators were not just revolting against their local government, but they were directly confronting one of the world’s most powerful countries, that is, China.
From an extradition bill to the request of more democracy
The protest of 2019 broke out as an answer to a controversial bill that would have allowed extradition to all those countries with which Hong Kong does not have an extradition ban, including mainland China. Opponents saw this as a threat to the rule of law of the former British colony, and worried that Beijing could use this bill to persecute whoever opposes its opaque political system thereby repressing freedoms and rights that Hong Kong is supposed to enjoy thanks to the above mentioned 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. Hundreds of thousands of protestors took to the street demanding the immediate removal of the bill, which was announced to be indefinitely suspended by Carrie La. However, given their fear that the bill could be restored, the protestor continued demonstrating requesting its completed withdrawal. Confrontations with police escalated quickly into violent clashes as the protestor took the chance to expand their request for which they were demonstrating. They were demanding the establishment of an independent inquiry to examine police ruthlessness, not to consider early protest as riots anymore, to release those arrested at protests, and to implement universal suffrage in Hong Kong. Clearly, this wider demand is generated from the long-stading omission of democracy in Hong Kong (Amnesty International, n.d.)
The repressive answer from the Governemnt lead to Hong Kong to experience one of its most brutal and tumultuous days. Demonstrators targeted Chinese-owned businesses, crushed the ATMs of the Bank of China, and boycotted restaurants that conveying pro-China positions. “An 18-year-old was shot in the chest with a live bullet as protesters fought officers with poles, petrol bombs and other projectiles. The government then banned protesters wearing face masks, and in early November a pro-Beijing lawmaker was stabbed in the street by a man pretending to be a supporter. One week later, a policeman shot one protester at close range when activists were trying to set up a roadblock. Later that day another man was set on fire by anti-government protesters” (BBC, 2019). Although Hong Kong’s chief executor withdraw the bill in September 2019, protests persisted until the outbreak of COVID-19 in early 2020.
“Beijing has taken a firm rhetorical stance, saying the protests “showed signs of terrorism.” Xi has demanded an end to the violence, saying the “radical” protests had trampled the city’s rule of law and that “stopping the violence and restoring order” was Hong Kong’s most “urgent task””. China also congratulated the police body as well as the chief executor for the manner in which violent criminals have been handed in line with the law (CNN, 2019).
Against this background, in June 2020 China implemented its most repressing action. By bypassing Hong Kong’s government China imposed a new national security law. “The legislation effectively criminalizes any dissent, and adopts extremely broad definitions for crimes such as terrorism, subversion, secession, and collusion with foreign powers. It also allows Beijing to establish a security force in Hong Kong and influence the selection of judges who will hear national security cases” (Maizland and Albert, 2021). Authorities made use of this bill to eradicate any form of political opposition. Pro-democracy candidates were excluded from the 2020 elections. Pro-democracy activists, former policymakers were persecuted and arrested. The national education system has seen the integration of patriotic programmes and the elimination of textbook that could contravene the law. National security offices were establishes for Beijing’s agents. Social media posts led students activists to be arrested. Critics fear that this law could radically alter life for Hong Kongers (Maizland and Albert, 2021).
Thus, in a background where China is intensifying its control over Hong Kong, last week’s arrest of nine per-democracy activists for taking part in last year’s banned Tiananmen commemoration comes as no surprise. Amnesty International claimed that this happening is yet another proof of Hong Kong’s struggle towards democracy, thereby denouncing the happenings as “another outrageous attack on the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong people”. Amnesty international continued by asserting that “it is scandalous that the 12 people formally convicted today have been jailed despite having committed no internationally recognisable crime. Yet there may be worse to come for the organisers of the vigil – some of whom are also facing more serious, yet no less spurious, ‘national security’ charges” (Aljazeera, 2021).
International intervention is urgently required
As protest have intensified over the years, Beijing sees the unfolding of the crisis as something that is really destabilizing and that questions its power and control. This may spark China to adopt a more intrusive, sanctioning, and stricter behaviour. Hence, a passive behaviour from the international community would lead to a complete collapse in terms of freedom and protection of human rights. The worrying conditions in which Hong Kongers have to live require prompt intervention given that in 2047 the Basic-Law expires and what lays ahead of the people as well as of the county’s autonomy is currently unclear and probably not positive.
One thing is clear, namely that the current unstable situation which is likely to trigger further protests will force sooner or later the Chinese Communist Party to take a decision – either a bloody, military crackdown or accommodate Hong Konger’s requests. However, the second option would be less likely as it would be a sign of China’s powerlessness and surrender to the West and its democratic values – which is a prospect that President Xi Jinping could allow neither nationally nor internationally. On the contrary, a military response to any further escalations is likely to lead to far worse consequences that what the world has witnessed during the Tiananmen Square protests 30 years ago. Yet, the Communist Party has proven to be capable of the worst atrocities in terms of human right violation when it pursued one of its most abhorrent authoritarian methods in the Xinjiang Province. Here, indigenous Turkic-speaking Muslim community, the Uyghurs, have been forced into concentration camps.
Against this background, the international community cannot sit back and allow China to common yet another mass crime in the name of its power and of the communist values. However, if the EU, the UK and the US will not intervene promptly, this will be the exact faith that Hong Kong will face in the near future. Too often through history, international help came too late after repressive measures have already been conducted. Yet, the question of how the international community should act to avoid a bloody ending sill persists. This difficulty in finding a way out for Hong Kong is also exacerbated by the fact that China is the most important trading partner of the min international players, such as the EU, the US, Japan and South Korea.
What is urgently required is an international lifeboat policy which would bring countries to develop solutions for a harmless way out for Hong Kongers. A cooperation between the US’ Southeast Asian allies, such as Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia who have been increasingly worrying about Chinese expansion in the South China Sea, could represent a first step to halt Beijing. Furthermore, countries such as the US, the EU, Canada as well as Japan could develop some important steps towards legislating policies for Hong Kong’s refugees. Laws facilitating Hong Kongers to apply for a residence as well as study or work permission would be a first possible solution. The British Prime Minister Johnson has suggested citizenship for up to 3 million Hong Kongers who possess British (Overseas) passports, if the bill allowing these passes (BBC, 2020).
Fulfilling this mission, would represent a powerful threat to authoritarianism and dictators who may have start wondering whether the West’s democratic model is slowly on the decline. This would prove once and for all the enormous power of the free word when it comes to safeguard one of its own members. Yet, there is no easy solution for Hong Kong, but allowing China to carry on with its plan may imply the end of the Western democratic liberal order.
Bibliography
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Q&A: HK’s anti-subversion bill. (2003, June 1). BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3035226.stm
BBC News. (2021, September 15). Hong Kong: Activists jailed for joining banned Tiananmen vigil. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-58568349
Eardley, N. (2020, July 1). Hong Kong: UK makes citizenship offer to residents. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-53246899
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Group, & Sherlock, S. S. (1997, June). Hong Kong and the Transfer to China: Issues and Prospects. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/CIB9697/97cib33
Hong Kong activists jailed for joining peaceful Tiananmen vigil. (2021, September 15). Aljazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/15/hong-kong-activists-given-jail-terms-for-joining-tiananmen-vigil
HONG KONG’S PROTESTS EXPLAINED (n.d). Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/09/hong-kong-protests-explained/)
Hughes, R. C. H. B. (2020, May 21). Why are there protests in Hong Kong? All the context you need. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-48607723
Kirby, J. (2019, November 26). Hong Kong protests: 9 questions you were too embarrassed to ask. Vox. https://www.vox.com/world/2019/8/22/20804294/hong-kong-protests-9-questions
Little, B. (2019, September 3). How Hong Kong Came Under “One Country, Two Systems” Rule. HISTORY. https://www.history.com/news/hong-kong-china-great-britain
Maizland, Albert, M. E. (2021, February 17). Hong Kong’s Freedoms: What China Promised and How It’s Cracking Down. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hong-kong-freedoms-democracy-protests-china-crackdown
The Hong Kong protests explained in 100 and 500 words. (2019, November 28). BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49317695
Yeung, J. (2019, December 20). From an extradition bill to a political crisis: A guide to the Hong Kong protests. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/15/asia/hong-kong-protests-explainer-intl-hnk-scli/index.html
By Mahmoud Refaat: The European Institute for International Law and International Relations.
