Malavika Menon, Samarth Srinivas
A glimpse into the situation in Hong Kong
Webster’s Dictionary defines a smokescreen as 'a screen of smoke to hinder enemy observation of a military force, area, or activity, something designed to obscure, confuse, or mislead'. With the COVID-19 pandemic, both the match and the resulting smoke can be found under the five-starred red flag. Similar to its Indian counterpart, the virus could not have come at a more opportune time than at a juncture where the voices and anguish of the youth threatened authoritarian policy. With all the attention going to COVID-19 coverage, there is little to no screen time to cover the Hong Kong protests- a fight for freedom over authoritarian rule.
Flipping the pages of history, the fate of Hong Kong today dates back to Chinese defeat in the 1842 Opium Wars. Hong Kong was ceded to the British Empire and continued to remain so until July 1997 when the Chinese flag was once again hoisted to usher in the era of ‘One Country, Two Systems’. In 1982, The Cabinet of Deng Xiaoping, had exclaimed to its British counterpart that in a choice between the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong and Chinese sovereignty, the Party would put sovereignty first. 27 years later they have truly shown in practice what they vowed in confidence. Ironically in his 2020 New Year’s Speech, President Xi Jinping eerily quoted – “A prosperous and stable Hong Kong is the aspiration of compatriots as well as the expectation of the people of the motherland”.
As of Saturday 20th June 2020, China has released its agenda to further strengthen the reigns on Hong Kong. The national security law includes a section dictating that the territory’s Chief Executive will have the power to decide which judge presides over which cases. This further erodes the relatively federal and independent nature of the legislature, executive and judiciary in Hong Kong, essentially implying that a politico can decide the fate of cases which call into question the legitimacy, efficiency or competence of any authority. The Communist Party of China (CCP) can completely control the outcome of judicial review rendering any erstwhile right to constitutional remedies worthless.
Hong Kong must be viewed through the lens of a precedent set by China over decades of oppression. Tibet and Taiwan suffer in silence today as the world has long forgotten their woes and moved on to fresher wounds even as the pangs of erstwhile lesions remain.
Integration with the Chinese ‘motherland’ has only resulted in stepson treatment for Tibet. The people have been robbed of their very being. Any attempt to ask for the simplest facets of their identity back is promptly labelled as ‘splittist’ by the CCP and can attract sentences as grave as life imprisonment. There are convenient blackouts orchestrated by the authorities during community festivities commemorating Tibetan culture and celebrating Buddhism. The Dalai Lama continues to take refuge in the monasteries of Dharamshala in India, lest he be poached in his homeland.
Why is China exerting increasing influence over Hong Kong now?
While the extradition bill was a forthright expression of China’s increasing assertiveness, Beijing has been chipping away at Hong Kong’s relative autonomy even prior to the introduction of the bill. The mainland’s economic dependence on Hong Kong has dropped significantly- while Hong Kong still remains a financial hub and an important conduit for foreign direct investment, its share in China’s GDP has dropped from 16% in 1997 to less than 3% in 2018.
However, Beijing’s stance towards Hong Kong has to be placed in a wider framework of domestic politics and China’s position in the international order.
China is approaching two centenaries: 2021, the founding of the CCP, and 2049, the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). These milestones are to be viewed as ceremonially indicative of the realisation of the ‘Chinese Dream’, and China’s ascent as a regional hegemon, and indeed a global superpower. These plans also seek to consolidate Xi Jinping’s image as a strongman and the legitimacy of Communist rule in China.
Beijing has begun to aggressively posture on multiple fronts, in more brazen ways than it has done before.
Economically, it has met protectionist US trade policy with firm reciprocation, and is engaging in what has been termed ‘predatory lending’, under the purview of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), in addition to purchasing ports and expanding infrastructure in geostrategically significant locations.
Militarily, it has increased its activity in the South and East China Seas, as well as along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) with India. Moreover, China is suspiciously active in emerging theatres of conflict such as cyberspace and ‘information warfare’, allegedly carrying out these operations through agents that maintain ambiguous links with the Chinese government.
Diplomatically, it has been quick to retort criticism, especially over its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, and has issued sharply-worded statements in what has come to be known as ‘wolf-warrior diplomacy’.
The draft Hong Kong national security bill is an extension of this narrative, and we can certainly expect to see many more such advances by Beijing on all fronts.
What do the protestors want, and are they likely to succeed?
The 5 demands put forth by the protestors are:
The withdrawal of the extradition bill
A commission of inquiry into alleged police brutality and misconduct
Retraction of the official classification of protesters as ‘rioters’
Amnesty for arrested prisoners
Resignation of Carrie Lam as Chief Executive and introduction of universal suffrage in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR)
The latter part of the fifth demand has been the undercurrent of pro-democracy activism in Hong Kong through the years. While there have been calls for Hong Kong independence, i.e, the establishment of a sovereign state of Hong Kong, it appears to be the case that demand for autonomy under the 'One Country, Two Systems' (1C2S) model is the uniting factor. In 2017, just 11% of people supported independence post-2047 (the expiry of 1C2S), although subsequent polling has shown an increasingly negative attitude towards the mainland.
The extradition bill was withdrawn after months of unrest in the city amidst international pressure, but Beijing has thrown its weight behind Chief Executive Carrie Lam; the Hong Kong government, largely controlled by the pro-Beijing camp, is unlikely to yield to the demands of the protestors at large. To further compound the issue, protestors have often turned violent, prompting Beijing to double down on the riot control rhetoric.
The pandemic has posed a major obstacle to the advancement of the protests, and Beijing has cracked down on dissent while global attention has been turned away. Perhaps the protests will continue- they may even pick up momentum- but domestic pressure will only go so far. China’s track record with pro-democracy protests speaks volumes in and of itself.
What has the international response been so far?
Countering China’s belligerence on the world stage has become somewhat of a dilemma for the US, UK and the EU, among several others. Global supply chains are entrenched in the Chinese economy and interdependence has arisen out of bilateral trade, to say nothing of smaller developing nations caught in Chinese debt traps.
In addition to this, China faces allegations of egregious human rights abuse, from enforced disappearances and arbitrary detention, to systematic repression of religious minorities and forced organ harvesting, and has come under increased international scrutiny for the same.
While the international response has broadly been limited to condemnation of Beijing’s crackdown on the protestors, and of the controversial legislation, there is hope yet for a coordinated multilateral response.
The US has passed legislation allowing for the administration to impose sanctions on China, and the EU parliament has even expressed intent to take China to the International Court of Justice over the draft national security law.
The UK, owing to its intertwined history with Hong Kong, has a sui generis relation to the issue. It maintains that the 1894 Sino-British Joint Declaration is an international treaty registered with the UN, binding on both its parties, therefore creating a ‘moral and legal obligation’ on the part of the UK to ensure that the provisions on autonomy of the territory are adhered to. China on the other hand, has called the Declaration a historical document of no current significance. The UK parliament has debated at length what its response to the Hong Kong issue should be, yielding a recurring idea- that of a planned international response.
What could a possible international response look like?
China’s handling of the pandemic and response to critique has magnified concerns over China’s expansionism and disregard towards international commitments.
The contours of an international alliance to confront China can be observed in the newly-formed Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), an ‘international cross-party group of legislators working towards reform on how democratic countries approach China’.
A multilateral grouping involving the US, UK, EU and select members of the Commonwealth of Nations, could potentially draw up a plan to offer second citizenship to Hong Kongers, contingent upon further erosion of autonomy, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
The UK has already begun to make an offer of temporary stay along these lines using British nationality provisions, but the path to citizenship is unclear, and may only apply to a certain section of older Hong Kong residents born pre-1997.
The population of HKSAR is estimated to be 7.5 million- the territory being an entrepôt between Britain and China, yet having a unique identity of its own. Any agreement to grant second citizenship, however implausible, would surely be a watershed moment in international relations.
In the same vein, a watershed is also in sight in the realm of global human rights protection. Any sanctions on a Chinese national, let alone an official, are viewed with apprehension- countries being wary of economic repercussions. If the aforementioned grouping, however, were to frame comprehensive Magnitsky-style laws, the possibility of a coordinated sanctions regime in the face of grave human rights violations by China, would also arise.
World over, there seems to be a rising trend of toxic nationalism, authoritarianism and fascism. Democracy is increasingly being viewed as an ‘idealist dream’. Populaces across the world are seemingly preferring stoic rulers over visionary leaders. Gone is the age of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. As a people, we are witnessing an era of autocracy veiled with the rhetoric of national security and protectionist ideals as opposed to moving towards global solidarity.
Over thirty years post the chilling horror of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, the people of Hong Kong strain their voices demanding freedom and democracy. Will they meet a similar fate? Will anything change in China? Is history merely repeating itself like a stuck tape recorder replaying its reel?
Comments