Posted on 05/25/2020 7:55:41 AM PDT by Kaslin
If the United States doesn’t follow through to revoke Hong Kong’s special treatment, Beijing may be emboldened to take aggressive actions against Taiwan.
May 22, 2020 will go down in history as an important milestone. On this day, Beijing announced it will impose a new national security law on Hong Kong, which will effectively end the “One Country, Two Systems” era.
Beijing made the move at this week’s “Two Sessions,” annual legislative meetings of two organizations: the National People’s Congress (NPC) and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). In the past, more than 5,000 delegates, representing the elites in China, from Communist Party members to business executives to movie stars, played their part in this annual political theater. They have no real legislative power, merely rubber stamping whatever the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) presents with 100 percent approval.
In truth, the Two Sessions serve as fig leaves that barely cover the regime’s dictatorial nature. Still, analysts pay a great deal of attention to these meetings because the CCP has historically used them to unveil important national policies, such as the annual economic target and budget, and any leadership changes.
Since 1998, the “Two Sessions” have been usually held in the first week of March. This year the meetings were delayed due to the coronavirus outbreak. They have drawn even more international attention this year to what Beijing plans to do with Hong Kong.
Beijing has pushed Hong Kong to pass a national security law for years. Beijing and its supporters often point to Article 23 of the Basic Law, a de facto constitution for Hong Kong, as legal justification. Article 23 stipulates that Hong Kong, not Beijing, “shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People’s Government (CPG), or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies.”
The Basic Law was drafted by a committee set up by China’s National People’s Congress in 1987. The draft committee consisted of members from both the mainland and Hong Kong. In 1989, Martin Lee and Szeto Wah, both representing Hong Kong on the Basic Law drafting committee, voiced their support for student protestors in Beijing and announced the suspension of their work for the committee.
Later that year when they tried to return to their work at the committee, Beijing expelled them and accused them of “subverting state power.” Without the Hong Kong pro-democracy camp’s involvement, the Basic Law became a product of Beijing, which laid the foundation for future unrest in Hong Kong. China approved the final version of the Basic Law on April 4, 1990, giving the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC) the final say in any interpretation.
In 2003, Beijing-appointed Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa said that according to Article 23 of the Basic Law, the city’s Legco needed to pass an anti-subversion bill that would impose maximum life prison sentences for treason, sedition, theft of state secrets, and subversion. Beijing supported the bill since it frequently uses similar laws to crack down on activists and dissidents in mainland China.
Hong Kongers were concerned that the definition of what constitutes subversion was so far-reaching that someone who organizes a peaceful protest could be charged if this bill became law. In addition, the bill would have given Tung’s government broad authority to outlaw any local groups with ties to any organization banned by Beijing.
It would also have given Hong Kong police the power to conduct searches without a warrant and ban disclosing state secrets. Therefore, on July 2, 2003, a day after Hong Kong’s government and Beijing celebrated the six-year anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover, more than 500,000 Hong Kongers took to the streets to protest this bill, which they believed could erode their political, religious, and press freedom. Facing such a strong opposition, Tung withdrew the controversial bill and none of his successors re-introduced it.
Last year, current Hong Kong chief Carrie Lam had to shelve her controversial extradition bill after millions of Hong Kongers took to the streets to voice their concerns for months, which eventually led to some fierce, violent confrontations between Hong Kong Police and protestors. The year 2019 ended with pro-democracy candidates earning a landslide win in the local district council election.
Beijing was clearly incensed as the events unfolded in 2019: Lam’s inability to pass the extradition bill, the ongoing protests that won international admiration and support, and the defeat of pro-Beijing candidates at the ballot box in local elections. 2020 hasn’t gone well for Beijing either. First China had to take draconian measures to contain the coronavirus outbreak, which has devastated China’s economy. After the outbreak became a global pandemic, Beijing’s international reputation and credibility plunged as countries blamed Beijing for mishandling the virus in its early days.
Still, Beijing wouldn’t let anything delay a more hard-line stand in Hong Kong. Hong Kong authorities arrested a number of prominent pro-democracy activists for their roles in the 2019 anti-extradition bill protests. Beijing appointed hardliner Xia Baolong the new director of its Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office (HKMAO).
Xia has openly Hong Kong’s pro-democracy lawmakers for filibustering bills Beijing wants to pass. In a dramatic scene this week, a few of the lawmakers he condemned were dragged out of the legislative council during a debate about a bill that would criminalize any action disrespecting the Chinese national anthem.
Beijing has clearly lost patience and decided there is no more need for pretense. The Two Sessions seems a perfect opportunity for Beijing to force a national security law down Hong Kong’s throat while bypassing Hong Kong’s legislature: 100 percent delegates from NPC and CPPCC will approve the bill. Mass protests in Hong Kong over this are difficult to organize because the city is still slowly emerging from the coronavirus shutdown.
Dennis Kwok, a pro-democracy legislator in Hong Kong, said Beijing’s action “basically means the end of ‘One Country, Two Systems.’” Maya Wang of Human Rights Watch tweeted, “Watching the fate of Hong Kong people being decided in Beijing tonight was like watching the Tiananmen Massacre in Beijing in 1989–that same feeling of powerlessness, the sadness, about the rights of people being trampled upon.”
Last November, the U.S. Congress passed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act (HRDA), which requires the U.S. Department of State to evaluate whether Hong Kong is still upholding the rule of law and protecting human rights and certify to Congress each year whether the city still warrants special treatment, different from mainland China, under various treaties and agreements.
Beijing’s action on Hong Kong this week puts the HRDA to a real test. If the United States doesn’t follow through on the act to revoke Hong Kong’s special treatment, Beijing will treat the act as a paper tiger and may be emboldened to take aggressive actions against Taiwan. If the United States does follow through on the act and revoke Hong Kong’s special treatment, Beijing will retaliate and the U.S.-China relationship will fall to a historical low, which will likely lead to many unforeseen economic, political, and even military repercussions.
No matter what the United States decides to do, the Hong Kong we have cherished and celebrated ceased to exist on May 22, 2020.
Biggest mistake they made
I thought that China would allow Hong Kong to maintain some freedoms, at least for many years, because Hong Kong had such a strong economy.
As China has introduced many free market reforms into their country in recent decades, some may have thought that the Chinese communists appreciate some aspects of freedom and capitalism. And Hong Kong exemplified those benefits.
But then, the Chinese government is still a totalitarian regime, even if they aren’t adhering to communist ideology as strongly nowadays.
I’m sure the Chinese communist leaders are afraid of Hong Kong freedoms infecting the rest of China, politically speaking.
The bottom line is that the Chinese communist leaders must exert control. They want control above all.
This is interesting to learn. I don’t understand why Hong Kong is so important as a banking gateway to China, but, clearly this situation in Hong Kong and China is going to have repercussions for us.
“I wouldn’t invite all of HK to come over here. Most of them are not protestor activists and would wind up voting Dem.”
Not a knowledge based statement, just a presumption without evidence.
“We already have so many Asians here that Auburn University’s faculty, grad-assistants, and students make it look like The University of Alabama at Shanghai.”
Most of those Asians are American born and raised, and things like what you commented on are the fault of too many (certainly not all) non-Asian American parents and their approach to their child’s education from an early age.
Most Asian Americans even into the latest generation have education attitudes like brand new immigrants most often have, more than those born here generally.
An Asian American kid from a doing well family does not assume that just because their family have had the “good life” that he or she is “destined” to go to college. Rich or poor all through K-12 they know college is going to come from consistent hard work over time, not a gift of status. If ALL American families took that attitude it would not seem like Asian American kids were so comparatively outstanding to all the others.
And you cannot blame our crappy K-12 public school indoctrination mills, because the Asian American kids have had to put up with them too.
I think they had a 99-year lease. Came to an end.
Much of Hong Kong only belonged to UK because of a 99-year lease which the Chinese choose not to renew. Don’t think the remainder that did belong to UK by treaty would have been viable. Don’t think the Brits really had a choice. Perhaps they thought that in 50 years mainland China might not be so bad.
“Bring in Hong Kongese (properly vetted) into the USA...”
It is hard to read such drivel as you’ve posted without getting angry at the stupidity you’ve revealed. This sort of knee-jerk response by the “good people” of the USA putatively to support the “good people” of anywhere else has brought this country to the brink of destruction. This nation does not need and can not afford to accept any more denizens from anywhere else regardless of their plight, whatever might be the cause. It is time for America to shut its doors and force the other people of the other nations of the world to clean up their own schittholes and leave us the hell alone! Got it?
Montserrat wrote: “I wouldn’t invite all of HK to come over here. Most of them are not protestor activists and would wind up voting Dem.”
You wrote: “Not a knowledge based statement, just a presumption without evidence.”
No, you are the one who is in error here. It has been consistently shown for many, many years that refugees who come to this country from anywhere else simply do not understand our fast-fading traditions of liberty and do not care to preserve what little freedom we have left. Every foreign national group and foreign ethnic group that has come to America for generations overwhelmingly become members of the Marxocrat free schitt army. These people have already destroyed this country, making it unrecognizable from what our parents and grandparents knew, and ruining the outlook for this nation for my children and grandchildren, and yours too. Wake the hell up!
“No, you are the one who is in error here. It has been consistently shown for many, many years that refugees who come to this country from anywhere else simply do not understand our fast-fading traditions of liberty and do not care to preserve what little freedom we have left.”
Again, not knowledge based. Assumptions and in terms of many groups of immigrants, false.
For instance, one of the most Conservative areas in California is Orange County. And who is the single largest overall “ethnic” group in Orange County? Asian Americans. That’s first time, and 2nd and 3rd and 4th generation Asian Americans - Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Filippino and Vietnamese. And how to majorities of them vote? Conservative.
Go to Florida, and where do you find the Cuban refugee immigrants? Conservative.
What is the majority view of “Latinos” on abortion? Pro Life.
What about Eastern Europeans?
The fact is you have no evidence, just a lot of assumptions and generalizations. Everyone fits in nice neat packages to you, but you created those packages.
Go to Florida, and where do you find the Cuban refugee immigrants? Conservative.
What is the majority view of “Latinos” on abortion? Pro Life.
What about Eastern Europeans?
The fact is you have no evidence, just a lot of assumptions and generalizations. Everyone fits in nice neat packages to you, but you created those packages.
Pot. Meet Kettle. You’re engaging in the same stereotypes you accuse others of. In fact, the bluest part of Florida is Cuban HQ (Miami-Dade). The older generations were conservatives but younger Cubans are not.
“Bring in Hong Kongese (properly vetted) into the USA “
Why in hell would we want to do that? Makes zero sense whatsoever.
Getting it out of the way so they can focus on Taiwan...
No thank you.
61% of Chinese Americans voted for Hilary Clinton.
Only 35% voted for Trump.
http://naasurvey.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/NAAS16-post-election-report.pdf
“Much of Hong Kong only belonged to UK because of a 99-year lease which the Chinese choose not to renew.”
Yes, only one part of Hong Kong was leased. The oldest parts were ceded in perpetuity to UK.
The Chinese did not decide to not renew the lease. It’s a common misunderstanding that this is what happened.
The Joint Agreement does not even mention the lease, or the Treaties that ceded Hong Kong to the UK.
The ChiComs would never base the agreement on the lease ending because their position is the lease was never valid and they never recognized the lease.
In addition, they were never the lease holder.
It’s important to know that Hong Kong’s administration was not turned over to the PRC because a lease ran out.
It was an agreement, an international treaty, under UN auspices between UK and PRC.
PRC and UK each had onbligations and these obligations have been breached.
Hong Kong is therefore independent and this should be the US and UN position.
The fact is you refuse to recognize the evidence even as its presented directly to you, just like the ignoramuses Fauci and Birx on the coronavirus. There may be statistical outliers in small groups in your neck of the woods or anyplace else you can dig up exceptions, but the overwhelming majority of refugees and foreigners that come here do exactly what I’ve posted that they do. You’re just willfully blind.
There is “evidence” of how Asian Americans vote but of course there are many different cultures in Asia. I haven’t seen a country by country breakdown. But the fact remains that even many immigrants from Taiwan vote leftist based upon San Francisco precinct results.
If it was up to you the conservative South Vietnamese would have been left to rot in South Vietnam or conservative Cubans would have been left to rot in Cuba.
Wonder if you have absolutely no problems with Communist Chinese H1Bs or students coming here or Indian H1Bs or students coming here though? Haven’t seen a single post of you opposing them...
Well, thank Gd for the laser cannons...
In addition they are emboldened to remove the few remaining Hong Kong liberties and freedoms by the same tyrannical moves by their communist counterparts in the United States...
Here (U.S.), or there (H.K.), neither resistance, retribution, or redress can be expected...
“why Hong Kong is so important as a banking gateway to China”
1. It has long been one of the major finance centers in the world, like New York and London.
2. The Hong Kong dollar is accepted as a real hard currency, freely convertible with the US Dollar, Euros, Pounds and Yen. The communists monopoly money (Renminbi or Yuan) is not. Chicoms need real money to buy the many imports they depend on, like oil, gas, minerals, metals and agricultural products.
Recently enacted US law requires that the political independence of Hong Kong must be re-certified annually. If it is not independent, it should have its Sovereign recognition revoked, which is the basis for its currency to be convertible.
The communists can (and do) just print mountains of their funny money, to stoke up their domestic economy. But their dollar-based (hard currency) economy is much smaller, and a much more precarious thing. That access to dollars (and other hard currencies), to buy essential imports, is what is at risk with cracking down on Hong Kong.
I guess they are hoping that no withdrawal of Sovereign recognition would take place prior to the next annual re-certification, and they might get a Democrat US president elected before that, who will accept a few tens of millions of dollars to re-certify them, no matter what they do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.