Why Doesn’t Hong Kong’s Tragic Subjugation Get As Much Attention As Ukraine?

https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/11/why-doesnt-hong-kongs-tragic-subjugation-get-as-much-attention- ^ | May 11, 2022 | Anonymous

[Kaslin]

Hong Kong “elected” a new chief while the world wasn’t paying attention. 

Hong Kong’s current chief Carrie Lam will retire at the end of June. The selection of her successor has followed the rules Beijing dictated since it took control of Hong Kong in 1997. Beijing stamped out any hope of universal suffrage in Hong Kong in 2004.

Rather than letting more than 7 million residents in Hong Kong have a say in whom the city’s chief should be, Beijing created a “nomi­nating committee” (which has more than 1,400 members today), the majority of which are pro-Beijing elites. The committee would “vote” for a candidate from a list of candidates approved by Beijing. Beijing has ensured that Hong Kong’s chief executive will always be its puppet through this arrangement. 

In previous “selections,” Beijing usually approved two or three candidates for the nominating committee to choose from, giving an illusion of an “election” even though the committee knew which candidate Beijing preferred. This year, Beijing dropped all pretense, so John Lee was the only candidate on the ballot. 

Lee served as Hong Kong’s security chief under Lam’s administration. He helped Beijing crack down on the city’s pro-democracy movement and enforced the draconian National Security Law.

The National Security Law criminalizes any act of so-called secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with a foreign country or external elements, with a maximum penalty of life in prison. The National Security Law also gives Beijing unprecedented extraterritorial power to punish anyone anywhere in the world for advocating for democracy in Hong Kong. 

Evidence that Democracy Has Already Died

Lee’s hard-line approach didn’t win him much public support. According to polls before last Sunday, Lee’s approval rating was only 35 percent. He probably would have had little chance of becoming the city’s chief had a general election been held.

However, with Beijing’s blessing, 1,416 out of the 1,428 members of the nominating committee “voted” for Lee. This means Lee will become Hong Kong’s new chief executive by winning 99 percent of the ballots cast. Such irony has demonstrated how pathetic the Beijing-sanctioned “selection” process is. 

Another irony about Lee’s “election” is that he will be the first Hong Kong chief under U.S. sanctions long before his term begins. In August 2020, the Trump administration imposed economic sanctions against a dozen Hong Kong officials, including Lee and Hong Kong’s current chief Carrie Lam, for “undermining Hong Kong’s autonomy after Beijing’s imposition in 2020 of the national-security law.”

These Hong Kong officials’ U.S. assets are frozen and U.S. persons and companies are banned from commercial transactions with them. Josep Borrell, the European Union’s foreign affairs chief, called Lee’s selection as Hong Kong’s chief “yet another step in the dismantling of the ‘one country, two systems’ principle.”

National Security Law Silences Journalists

Unfortunately,  the selection of Lee is hardly the only bad news out of Hong Kong. Reporters without Borders recently released the 2022 edition of the World Press Freedom Index, which assesses the state of journalism in 180 countries and territories.

When this index was first established in 2002, Hong Kong ranked 18. Twenty years later, Hong Kong’s press freedom score has dropped to 148 out of 180, only slightly better than Communist China’s 175 out of 180. Calling Hong Kong once “a bastion of press freedom,” RSF said the city had seen “an unprecedented setback since 2020 when Beijing adopted a National Security Law aimed at silencing independent voices.” 

According to RSF, examples of Hong Kong’s deterioration of press freedom include the government’s forceful closure of two major independent local news outlets, Apple Daily and Standard News, in 2021 under the pretext of national security threats. In addition, “numerous smaller-scale media outlets ceased operations” due to increasing legal risks. Dozens of Hong Kong journalists and media personalities have been arrested for “national security” crimes since 2020, and some, including Apple Daily’s publisher Jimmy Lai, are still languishing in prison.

West’s Indifference

What’s sadder than Hong Kong’s demise as a free society is the silence and indifference from the rest of the world. While activists, corporations, and governments are taking a stand to help Ukraine preserve its democracy and resist Russia’s invasion, very few talk about Hong Kong’s worsening political environment. They have forgotten that Hong Kongers courageously fought for democracy in their city for more than two decades, including the famed “Umbrella Movement” in 2014 and the anti-extradition bill protests in 2019.

There are likely three reasons for this collective silence and indifference to Hong Kong’s deterioration. First, the draconian National Security Law and its broad applications have silenced many people, including those who live abroad, from expressing any support for Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement and activists. People are understandably worried they may have to face the Chinese government’s harsh punishment if they speak up.

Second, the danger Ukraine faces is immediate and highly visual due to Russia’s invasion. Ukraine leaders such as Prime Minister Volodymyr Zelensky have gotten the world’s sympathy by framing Ukraine’s resistance to Russia as a historical fight for democracy. 

Hong Kongers didn’t lose their political freedom overnight. It took more than two decades, and people outside of the city have been less alarmed by the gradual corrosion of residents’ liberty.

It is a typical “boiling the frog” syndrome, “the failure to accept, acknowledge, or act against a problematic situation that will gradually increase in severity until it reaches calamitous proportions.” Hong Kongers also have the misfortune that most of their city’s elites, including many government officials, are more willing to sell out the city for fame and fortune than to advocate for people’s political rights. 

China Has Weaponized Its Economic Power

Third, foreign governments and businesses have avoided criticizing China over Hong Kong due to economic interests. It is easier to take a stand against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine because Russia’s economy is no bigger than South Korea’s. Other than the energy sector, criticizing Putin or ceasing business operations in Russia hasn’t presented much economic sacrifice for many governments and businesses. 

China is the world’s second-largest economy. Many foreign governments and businesses not only count on exporting their goods and services to China’s large consumer market but also rely on China for supplies, from clothes to toys, to solar panels and materials for batteries for electric vehicles. Communist China has long weaponized its economic power to compel foreign governments and businesses to bend their knees and compromise their democratic values. China’s approach is less bloody than Russia’s invasion but still presents a serious threat to democracy.

Hong Kong’s fall from being one of the freest places in the world to merely another city under the Chinese Communist Party’s authoritarian rule is one of the most tragic events in our lifetime. It’s no less devastating than Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. If the rest of the world truly cares about defending democratic values, they should speak up and take a stand for Hong Kong, the same way they do now for Ukraine.

[ifinnegan]

“Because Hong Kong was a lease arrangement between Britain and China, and was never a sovereign country. The lease was always going to run out.”

No. This is misinformation that a lot of people think.

Hong Kong was ceded in perpetuity to the UK.

Kowloon also.

New Territories was leased by the Qing to the UK, which is what people usually refer to when they erroneously say Hong Kong was leased.

People’s Republic of China did not lease it, nor did they maintain the lease or even have the lease documents.

That was not the legal basis for the “handover.”

The Sino-British Joint Declaration, the treaty, did not even mention the lease of New Territories.

[ifinnegan]

ChiComs have breached the treaty and are illegally occupying and administering Hong Kong.

That’s the bottom line reality.

[Clemenza]

Hong Kong is part of the People’s Republic of China. Same culture, same overall worldview, etc. Its like caring about the “subjugation” of Beijing.

Just because some foppish Brits had a lease for a few years doesn’t make it any less a part of China.

[maddog55]

Hong Kong is a British problem not American.

When China goes after Tiawan, probably within the next couple years, Biden will borrow more funds from China to help them out.

Ukraine is not an American problem, it’s a European problem and should be handled by Europeans period.

The reason this administration is helping is because it’s the exact opposite of what should be done which is what they have done on every issue facing America, if it helps America and Americans, do the opposite.

[ifinnegan]

“Because the new territories were legally correctly handed back to china in 1997 and hong Kong island could not survive without them.”

False.

If you’re a ChiCom you believe what you said.

You’re wrong on every count.

Hong Kong could survive no differently than they were. The ChiComs used extortion, though, essentially death threats.

The lease was no longer in effect. The ChiComs did not inherit it.

The Treaty was not based on a lease expiring.

If you think it’s “correct” then your opinion is it was correct to let ChiComs become dictators over Hong Kong.

[McGruff]

Because Ukraine has the goods on the Biden crime family’s operations.

[ifinnegan]

Hey, Clemenza. Listen and do not misunderstand.

You are a liar.

Are you clear in that?

[ifinnegan]

“Ukraine fought. Hong Kong didn’t.”

Not really true.

Hong Kong couldn’t have done more to express that they did not want the ChiComs to breach the treaty and begin take away their rights.

Millions of Hong Kongers demonstrated throughout the city-state for months on end.

During lunch breaks, people went to the streets en masse and sang. Hong Kong is rich because it is filled with smart hard working productive people.

There was a district election seen as a referendum by the ChiComs who thought their candidates would win the majority. In fact they lost every race but one (which was not a competitive race).

The support for Hong Kong by Hong Kongers was overwhelming and made clear.

Of course that is why ChiComs then went draconian. They realized they have no popular support and Hong Kong posed a greater threat to their dictatorship than they thought.

[JimRed]

The shooting there is taking place out of sight. No 24 seven coverage on that.

[arthurus]

Hon Kong is actually a part of China. It was leased for a term then returned.

[Fireone]

Because The Biden Crime Family’s Chinese overlords are going to walk right in, with assistance, not resistance.

[ViLaLuz]

Very good question. Because China is the aggressor. China gets a pass.

[KittyKares]

I’m glad you brought up that they did what they could by protesting in huge numbers. I believe they were even holding up U.S. symbols — I forget if it was our flag or the statue of liberty. I think it was the pandemic that shut them down.

[Cronos]

I would love to see hong Kong independent, however, look at the geography

the new territories gave hong Kong its water. Hong Kong's trade was primarily to and from China.

it was not an entrepot like Singapore.

Dengue got back the New Territories as per the 99 year lease which ended in 1997. Thatcher realised that the island was not tenable separately and YES, The Chicoma threatened to take the island by force. These were not the Falkalands and far from the mainland.

as to your statement about the lease ni longer being in effect.

The British took Hong Kong in three stages:

After losing opium war 1, China perpetually ceded Hong Kong Island to the UK in the Treaty of Nanking (Nanjing) in 1842.

After losing the second opium war, china perpetually ceded a part of the mainland called Kowloon (nine-dragons) to the UK in the Treaty of Peking (Beijing) in 1860. It’s boundary with China was Boundary Street.

After losing the war with japan in 1894, China was weaker still and the the UK wanted strategic depth for the defence of its Hong Kong (plus Kowloon) colony. Because the UK did not actually fight China, the Brits could only strong-arm China into signing a lease. So a lease was signed for the aptly named New Territories. A 99-year lease was standard in Common Law and the Brits thought it was as good as forever.

the lease was unfortunately fully legal for China to end

[Cronos]

Which treaty do you refer to as “not based on lease expiring”?

Everything outside of Hong Kong Island was leased. Most of Hong Kong’s population live in the Kowloon Territories. Returning it to China would be the equivalent of having to pass through immigration just to go to work every day.

Also. Hong Kong depends entirely on mainland china for water and food.

Everyone expected that Hong Kong would soon be returned after WWII to Chiang Kai-Shek. What made everything change was that the Communists won the revolution and to everyone’s surprise Mao left HK as is. Britian suggested the chicoms took it back in the 1950s,but PRC refused because almost all foregin exchange were from HK and the PRC at that time was under sanctions.

A free hong Kong kong would be ideal, but its not sustainable, it would be like an independent Connecticut if the USA wanted it back (heavens knows why!)

[Cronos]

Doesn’t matter if historically was part of x y or z.

Parts of the USA were historically part of france or the uk or Spain. Don’t give them rights.

And texas was independent.

[Cronos]

Ah, you are talking about the joint declaration treaty of 1997.

Yes, china has, since 2010 at least, breached that treaty that was due to last until 2047.

Right now they are illegally pulling strings, very overtly in hong kong island, in breach of the treaty.

The difference between HK and Ukraine is size and fait accompli.

If, in February, the Russian paratroopers had performed better AND if Zelensky hadn’t said “the fight us here, I need bullets, not a ride”, then Ukraine would also be a fait accompli.

The chicoms are sneaker, they waited decades. Now no one is going to interfere, even if they were weak.

Putin could have waited, taken only the dpr and lpr and then waited for Zelensky to collapse and be voted out, but he overplayed his hand

[Cronos]

I’ve lived in Hong Kong. While it does share culture with Cantonese chinese, it isn’t the same.

And the world view is utterly different between a hong Kong and a Shenzhen person.

[ifinnegan]

Singapore could never be independent from Malaysia, right?

it depends on Mayasia for everything.

And read the Joint Declaration. It is not based on the New Territories lease expiring.

“the lease was unfortunately fully legal for China to end”

Groundless assertion. I say ludicrous.

And the proof is ChiComs did not end the lease, the exchange was not based on CCP ending the lease.

How could they?

[ifinnegan]

Yes, china has, since 2010 at least, breached that treaty that was due to last until 2047.

Right now they are illegally pulling strings, very overtly in hong kong island, in breach of the treaty.

—

Correct.

They are now illegally occupying.