Last Friday, March 12, foreign ministers in the G7 group of nations issued a statement criticizing the recent moves by Beijing, i.e., the plans to improve Hong Kong’s electoral system to ensure that only patriots should administer the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
In that statement, the G7 foreign ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States and the High Representative of the European Union expressed their “grave concerns at the Chinese authorities’ decision fundamentally to erode democratic elements of the electoral system in Hong Kong”. They also asserted that Beijing’s move “strongly indicates that the authorities in mainland China are determined to eliminate dissenting voices and opinions in Hong Kong”, undermining the “one country, two systems” principle.
The statement goes even further and ends by calling China and its HKSAR to act in accordance with the Sino-British Joint Declaration and “end the unwarranted oppression of those who promote democratic values and the defense of rights and freedoms”.
Such an abrasive statement deserves a few comments.
Firstly, mentioning Beijing’s alleged attempts to “eliminate dissenting voices and opinion” without making any reference to the violence and riots that preceded the current situation is misleading and incomplete, to say the least. Leaving aside all the considerations and opinions regarding the National Security Law (NSL) and the “patriots only” electoral reform, one cannot neglect the fact that in 2019 and early 2020, Hong Kong suffered one of its most violent periods ever, if not the most violent one, and violence is always violence. Therefore, if the G7 wanted to have more credibility for its statement, it should have tried to adopt a more balanced approach and it should have made some reference to what happened in Hong Kong in 2019 and early 2020 to provide its readers with the right context.
Secondly, as I mentioned in “Don’t mistake Hong Kong for a foreign concession” (China Daily Hong Kong Edition, June 15, 2020), in the perception of some people, Hong Kong is some sort of international city or foreign concession, in the same way that, for example, from 1923 to 1956, the city of Tangier in Morocco was jointly administered by several foreign powers as an “international city”. Apparently, to them, Hong Kong does not belong exclusively to China, even though China has undisputed sovereignty over it. Therefore, Hong Kong’s future should be a matter of discussion among many countries, including the US and the UK, even if it pertains to Hong Kong’s internal affairs.
What the NSL (National Security Law) did was to put an end to the anarchy that was devastating Hong Kong: 99.9 percent of Hong Kong people have not been affected by this new law, since it targets only separatist activities, subversion of State power, terrorism, and foreign interference
However, Hong Kong is and will remain part of China, even though it’s presently caught in the crossfire of this meaningless US-China trade war started by Washington under Donald Trump’s presidency.
Would it make sense for example for China to meddle in the England-Scotland relationship? It would not, and the international community would undoubtedly ask China in that case to mind its own business and to not interfere. Why can others interfere with China and its HKSAR, then?
Some people would argue, for example, that the UK can meddle in the Hong Kong-Chinese mainland relationship because Hong Kong used to be a British Crown Colony. We must bear in mind, though, that following the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, in 1997 Hong Kong returned to China under the “one country, two systems” principle, China has complied thus far with what was agreed in the Joint Declaration, so there is no reason to criticize China for its handling of Hong Kong affairs, which are essentially its own internal affairs.
Last but not least, the statement makes a reference to the “oppression of those who promote democratic values and the defense of rights and freedoms”. “Oppression” is indeed a harsh and wrong word to use in this case.
Hongkongers are not oppressed: They are free to express their ideas peacefully and respectfully; nothing has changed in that regard. What the NSL did was to put an end to the anarchy that was devastating Hong Kong: 99.9 percent of Hong Kong people have not been affected by this new law, since it targets only separatist activities, subversion of State power, terrorism, and foreign interference.
Can we really claim that Hongkongers are oppressed? Hong Kong remains one of the world’s freest economies, one of the most important global financial hubs and one of the best places in the world to do business in. A place whose unemployment rate (despite the recent surge due to the pandemic) has always been very low, much lower than in the West in general. A region where its citizens have higher salaries than in most Western countries, and switching jobs is easier than in most other countries. Where people are free to share their ideas as long as they do it peacefully. A place with one of the best public housing systems in the world. A place with one of the most convenient public transportation systems in the whole world. A place that has shown its prowess when dealing with pandemics and financial crises in the past and now. A place where new restaurants and museums open all the time. A place whose nightlife and daylife are among the most thrilling in the world. A place full of amazing natural landmarks…
Can we really assert that Hongkongers are oppressed?
To sum up, if the US also has laws to protect national security, as most countries do, and if most similar laws in other countries are actually harsher, what is all the fuss about Hong Kong’s security law? Why is China’s response “oppressive” whilst other countries’ behavior, when facing episodes of wanton violence and destruction, is “justified and measured”? Why does the international community still see Hong Kong as some sort of foreign concession rather than what it is, a Special Administrative Region of China?
The answer to these questions is not simple. One possible answer might be the fact that China could overtake the US as the world’s largest economy much sooner than expected, and this is worrying to some countries. Nevertheless, China has not shown these in last decades any kind of tilt toward imperialism, which means that China must not be seen as an enemy and a threat, but as a friend. Given the fact that this will be Asia’s and China’s century, it would be in everybody’s interest to reach constructive solutions and agreements with China rather than always trying to undermine it, and this should start with Hong Kong: Foreign countries should have a balanced approach toward Hong Kong and try to see that this is not a fight of democracy vs. oppression, but something much deeper. Hong Kong does not deserve to be used as a chess piece.
The author works as a fintech adviser and researcher, and has worked as a business analyst for a Hong Kong publicly listed company. He is currently a member of the Blockchain, Digital Banking and Greater Bay Area Committees at the Fintech Association of Hong Kong.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.