Last week, during a long-awaited, high-level meeting between Chinese and US officials in Anchorage, Alaska, China’s top diplomat Yang Jiechi dropped a bombshell by delivering a wide-ranging critique of US policies. He spoke in response to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s opening salvo accusing China of threatening the global “rules-based order”.
Unaccustomed to being put on the defensive, American media have variously described the exchange as “fiery”, “explosive”, “confrontational” or “grandstanding”. Yet, as always, the headlines hardly capture the many important messages Director Yang imparted to his American counterparts and to the rest of the world.
The first important message is that China shares the same basic values as the rest of the world in promoting peace, development, justice, equality, opportunity, freedom and democracy. China has staunchly supported the global order underpinned by the charter and principles of the United Nations; and contributed to world peace and regional development. The global order embraced by the international community is embodied by the United Nations, an international organization established since 1945, and made up of 193 member states. It is not for the US, and a handful of its allies, to wantonly re-define the “rules-based order” in their image, in disregard of the mission and institutions of the United Nations.
The frequent accusations made by Western countries against China for alleged “assault on basic values”, and the consequent sanctions, are a perfect illustration of their hypocrisy, arrogance, and fake moral superiority. Western countries cannot justifiably lay any claims to moral superiority compared to China, when the history of their ascent to great power or wealthy nation status is littered with shameful chapters of colonialism, slavery, extraction of resources from the least developed countries, violence, genocide of indigenous people and forcible separation of indigenous children from their families. Although modern China has engaged in border conflicts from time to time, it has never been involved in foreign aggression or overseas military campaigns in the name of freedom or democracy, resulting in the killings and displacement of large numbers of civilians.
It should be noted that successive US administrations have been compelled to make up to native Americans by offering various conservation plans. In 2008, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd formally apologized to the aborigines for the forcible removal of their children to institutions enforcing acculturation programs.
The facts are such that Western powers that routinely slam China for alleged human rights abuses are truly not qualified to do so, in view of their own dishonorable history and the racism and discrimination against ethnic or religious minorities that continue to fester in their countries.
The US has slapped sanctions on officials in the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong for alleged suppression of Hong Kong’s democratic development. It should be noted that Hong Kong’s democratic development was a long time coming in the British era, as British officials preferred to keep power in their hands to implement a simple but effective executive-led system. Western scholars agreed that Hong Kong was “free” before it became partially democratic, measured in terms of the extent of popular participation in elections. Hong Kong’s freedoms are underpinned by the rule of law, and the rule of law continues to function robustly in Hong Kong today.
Every country has a right to develop its own democratic system in the light of its historic and practical realities. This is what Hong Kong, backed by its motherland, is trying to do. Our efforts should be respected, not condemned
It should be recognized that neither “democracy” nor “universal suffrage” is mentioned in the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the future of Hong Kong. But Beijing agreed, in the course of drafting the Basic Law, to grant Hong Kong people far greater opportunity of participation in the election of their leaders than in the British era. The number of seats in the Legislative Council returned by universal suffrage increased from 20 in 1998 to 40 in 2012 (including 5 elected from among District Councilors and returned by Hong Kong as one at-large constituency). Yet this democratic experiment has not fared well. Mass-based elections have been marred by vicious electoral strategies predicated on stirring up fear, disaffection and even hatred against our sovereign country. Abuse of loopholes in outdated rules of procedure of our Legislative Council, and exploitation of veto power by legislators from the opposition camp have greatly hampered the work of the legislature in vetting legislative and expenditure proposals from the government. Extreme filibusters have resulted in massive delays which held back the government’s ability to address deep-rooted problems, such as the land and housing shortage and the widening wealth gap.
Emboldened by their success in mobilizing young people to oppose, and even attempt to overthrow the government during the unlawful “Occupy Central” movement in late 2014, forces bent on undermining the security of Hong Kong and hence that of China turned the 2019 protests against a fugitive offenders rendition bill into a dangerous separatist and subversive movement. Prolonged violence, vandalism and attacks on people who did not agree with the rioters turned Hong Kong, hitherto one of the safest cities in the world, into a terrorized battleground. Hong Kong would have remained unsafe, embattled, with its economy severely damaged, but for the decisive action taken by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee to enact a national security law for Hong Kong in June 2020.
There is no “one-size-fits-all” democratic system which works well in every part of the world. Every government has a right, indeed a duty, to review its electoral laws from time to time to improve its political system. Hong Kong is no exception. In view of the events of 2019 which posed serious risks to national security, and the attempt by a number of lawmakers and activists in the opposition camp to organize “primary elections” last July with a view to seizing “35+” seats in the Legislative Council to bring government to a standstill and to oust the chief executive, again the central authorities have to take decisive action to initiate electoral reform. The 9-point decision of the National People’s Congress of March 11 only involved amendments to Annex 1 and Annex 2 of the Basic Law concerning the methods of electing the Chief Executive and forming the Legislative Council. No amendments to the Basic Law were proposed, and the election of the Chief Executive and the entire Legislative Council by universal suffrage remains the ultimate goal. But there must be “gradual and orderly progress”, progress that does not run counter to the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong, or the sovereignty and security of our country. The way forward must be determined in the light of the actual situation in Hong Kong.
Where there have been widespread disorder and rancorous emotions blocking voters’ ability to make rational, informed decisions, there ought to be a cool-down period. Where expansion of the directly elected element has led to disfunction within the legislature and threats to the motherland, we need to step back and think hard about how to improve our system.
That is what the National People’s Congress’ initiatives about Hong Kong, on national security and electoral reform, are about. China has every right and duty to set its own house in order. Foreign powers have no locus to pass judgments on China’s efforts to improve the welfare of its people and meddle in its internal affairs.
Since the establishment of New China, the Chinese Communist Party has worked tirelessly to improve the welfare of the people and lifted hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty. The rights and freedoms of the Chinese people are steadily improving. Every country has a right to develop its own democratic system in the light of its historic and practical realities. This is what Hong Kong, backed by its motherland, is trying to do. Our efforts should be respected, not condemned. Those Western powers, ever ready to get on a high horse and impose sanctions, should look at themselves in the mirror before they judge others.
The author is a member of the Executive Council and the Legislative Council.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.