Lessons from Hong Kong

Hong Kong is witnessing large popular protests against aproposed law which would enable its administration to extradite residents tocountries with which the territory does not have extradition agreements. Theprotest leaders fear, despite assurances to the contrary from the authorities,that the law will be used by China to get its hands on its critics in HongKong. Even more, many Hong Kong people feel that the law would be one more stepto erode the territory’s special status which allows, unlike in the Chinesemainland, civil liberties and freedoms within a ‘democratic’ capitalist system.

A brief consideration of past history would contribute tounderstand the game in play in an important global financial and commercialcentre with which Indians have a long and continuing relationship.

   

Britain and China went to war in 1839-42 because of theformer’s insistence to be allowed to freely export opium to the latter. Thatopium devastating the country, was of no consequence to the ancestors of thosewho today preach the value of human rights to the world at large! Britainsucceeded in the war and as part of the peace treaty signed in Nanking inAugust 1842 compelled China to cede Hong Kong island in perpetuity. The islandbecame a British colony. Hong Kong’s territory was expanded by securing moreterritories in perpetuity following the second opium war in 1860. In 1898 Chinawas compelled to lease land for 99 years. With this the colony’s territorialdisposition was finalised.

Hong Kong became an important gateway to China and asignificant British outpost to countries further east. This situation continuedtill World War II when Japan occupied Hong Kong in 1941-45. Following the war,the British took back the colony and while it began to withdraw from itspossessions, east of Aden, from 1968 it retained Hong Kong. A decade laterBritain and China engaged on Hong Kong’s future and agreed in 1984 on theprinciples relating to its entire return in 1997 when only the 99-year leasepertaining to the land acquired in 1898 was to expire.

In the Sino-British agreement China accepted that it wouldcreate a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) which would enjoy a”high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs which are theresponsibility of the Central People’s Government”. This meant that Hong Kongwould be self-governing with some light monitoring by Beijing so as to ensurethat China’s territorial integrity was not challenged. The chief executivewould be appointed by China on the recommendation of representative groups ofHKSAR but it was also specified that by 2017 the chief executive would beelected by universal suffrage. HKSAR judiciary was given the final powers ofadjudication and would follow the common law system. Within the rubric of “onecountry, two systems” the agreement also guaranteed “the current social and economicsystems in Hong Kong will remain unchanged, so will the life-style”. Theagreement was converted into HKSAR’s Basic Law in 1990 to go into effect in1997 when Hong Kong reverted to China.

The twenty-two years that have passed since Hong Kong revertedto China and even more the three and a half decades that have elapsed since theSino-British agreement have seen a basic transformation of the world. In 1984China had just begun to change its economic model. It needed western goodwilland Hong Kong as a thriving financial centre for its own growth. By 1997 Chinahad shown remarkable development but was still dwarfed by the west.

Today China considers itself in the same bracket as theUnited States and Hong Kong is no longer critical for its development process.Its attitudes have hardened on Hong Kong. It is no longer willing to acceptthose elements of the Hong Kong system which, in its view, impact itsinterests. This is in keeping with how great powers act and India’s own historyis illustrative.

The East India Company had signed treaties with Indianprincely states over a period of a hundred and fifty years beginning with theearly eighteenth century to 1856. The earlier treaties were signed as ifbetween equal parties. After 1857 when the Company passed into history and theBritish government took direct charge it changed the rules of the game andbegan to implement the principle ‘paramountcy is paramount’. Notwithstanding,the nature of the treaties it reduced all princely states to the samesubordinate status despite the protestations of those states that claimedequality on the basis of their treaties with the Company. The Hong Kong peopleshould read this history especially when Britain is vociferously asking Chinato adhere to the 1984 agreement and the Basic Law.

Over the years the Hong Kong people have demonstratedagainst many proposed changes. Only in 2003 did China permit a strong lawagainst sedition to be dropped. Later protests even if prolonged have notachieved their objectives. In 2014 protests went on for months against aproposal that the Chief Executive would be elected thorough universal suffrageonly from candidates nominated by a college of 1200. This would ensure that awild card challenging the overall authority of China would be eliminated forthe college would represent pro-China people. The protests eventually witheredaway.

That is the likely fate of the present protests though theapprehensions of China’s virtually abandoning the ‘two-system’ approach aredeeply felt. Meanwhile China has dismissed western criticism of the proposedchanges. It is unlikely that Xi Jinping would allow the law to be abandonedthough he may permit some more dilution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

6 + seventeen =