One China, Two Opinions
In a move that has come as 'no surprise' to observer, Beijing has once again hit out at a twice yearly report, commissioned by the British government, on the progress of Hong Kong since its return to Mainland Chinese rule.
As with previous reports, the latest edition, the 19th such report since the handover of Hong Kong in 1997, criticized China for its slow progress towards Democracy in Hong Kong -Saying that “little or no visible progress” had been made – and called on Beijing to introduce a 'fair and representative' democratic system with the minimum of delay.
| | “We believe Hong Kong should advance to a system of universal suffrage, as envisioned in the Basic Law, as soon as possible.”
Margaret Becket, Foreign Secretary, Britain | |
Business as Usual
As expected, the report provoked outrage in Beijing, and prompted a strong rebuke from Chinese authorities.
Denouncing the report as being an interference in its internal affairs, Beijing denied the validity of calls made on it and, in turn, called on Britain to cease making what it referred to as “Random comments” about domestic Chinese issues.
| | "Hong Kong affairs are China's domestic affairs, and foreign governments should not make random comments about them"
Liu Jianchao, Spokesperson, Foreign Ministry, China | |
No Comment
However, as is traditional for China's current regime, rather than answering the criticizms made against it, Beijing responded issuing a blanket statement of dismissal that denied the existence of the issues raised by the British report.
In response to British calls for China to honor earlier agreements to introduce local rule and free elections in Hong Kong, Beijing denied that there were any problems or inadaquacies with Hong Kong's system that needed to be addressed, instead voicing that the people of Hong Kong had a high level of local democracy, and that this democracy was well protected by Hong Kong law.
| | "The people of Hong Kong are enjoying unprecedented democratic rights legally granted to them".
Liu Jianchao, Spokesperson, Foreign Ministry, China | |
Chinese officials however declined to elaborate on any of the factors behind their dismissal of Britain's report, and were unwilling to provide examples to counter Britain's claims.
State of play
When Hong Kong was returned to the Mainland in 1997, it had been envisaged that the territory would have a functioning democratic government in place for the 10 year anniversary in 2007. However, this has since proven impossible.
Although China has long maintained that it intends to honor earlier agreements to introduce full democratic rule in Hong Kong, Beijing has, on many occasions, actively interfered in Hong Kong's domestic affairs in order to prevent it from changing to a democratic system of government, and to ensure that the democratic elements of Hong Kong's current administration cannot wield greater power than the elements that are appointed by the Mainland government.
An Example this interference includes an earlier decision by Beijing to 'fix' the ratio of elected and appointed officials in Hong Kong at 50/50, and the additional mandate that any increase in the number of elected representatives being met by a corresponding rise in the number of unelected representatives.
A move which means that democratically elected representative cannot force legislation through against Beijing's wishes unless appointed members also rebel against will of the Mainland government. An event which can best be described as being 'highly uncommon'.
Additionally, in 2004, Beijing also announced that it any changes to Hong Kong's laws to facilitate Universal Suffrage, or to prepare for its introduction at a future date, required direct approval from Beijing before they could be signed into law.
To date, no approval has been given for any such changes to be made, and no timetable has yet been set for approval to be given.
Reasoning
Officially, Beijing maintains that these state mandated obstacles to Universal Suffrage, and the accompanying slow progress towards direct democratic elections, is part of a measured approach to ensure regional economic and social stability is maintained.
However, many observers have voiced that Beijing is instead more likely to be afraid that greater democracy in Hong Kong would provoke calls for greater democracy on the Mainland.
An eventuality which Beijing has repeatedly acted to suppress. Sometimes through military force.
Double Standards?
While China has, so far, ruled out the permitting Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong for the foreseeable future, a number of observers responded to Britain's critisizm of China, with critisizm of their own that goes above and beyond the rebuke issued by Beijing.
Accusing Britain of crass hypocrisy, and voicing that the former colonial power has little or no right to lecture China on democracy in Hong Kong, such observers have pointedly noted that Britain, itself, failed to establish even 'a token democratically elected government' in Hong Kong. Instead, choosing to rule over it through a series of politically appointed Governor until it was time to transfered to back to the Mainland.
Dismissal?
Accusations of 'double standards' by Britain have, however, been dismissed by a number of China watchers, who have decried them as being 'ill informed comments' made by 'ill informed people'.
Though not necissarily agreeing with Britain's stance, China watchers have laid several counter defenses of British actions, including the fact that, for the last 50 years of British Rule, Britain was largely unable to introduce democracy to its colony because of the risk involved.
Specifically, because of the risk of a military threat to a democratic Hong Kong from Communist China.
Resumption of Sovereignty?
In the decades prior to the handover, Beijing issued numerous pointed 'reminders' to Britain that it 'reserved the right' to nullify all prior agreements and treaties regarding the handover of Hong Kong and “Resume Sovereignty Early” in the event of Universal Suffrage being introduced.
"Resuming Sovereignty Early" was a veiled reference to seizing Hong Kong by military force. It was commonly used to 'discourage' Britain from changing Hong Kong's status quo in any way that was not to Beijing's liking.
At the time, Britain considered Hong Kong to be 'undefendable' from a Mainland attack, because of the ease at which even a small Chinese force could cut off its supplies of food and water.
| | "It must be fully obvious .... that Hong Kong is indefensible by conventional means and that in the event of a Chinese attack, nuclear strikes against China would be the only alternative to complete abandonment of the colony.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Foreign Secretary, Britain (1961) | |
History?
Historically, Hong Kong had 30 appointed governors prior to its handover in 1997. 28 of whom were foreigners, of British origin, who were appointed by Britain without consulting the Hong Kong public. The remaining 2 were Japanese, and were appointed by Japan during the occupation of Hong Kong. For obvious reasons, they are not officially recorded as being legitimate governors. Original Article: One China, Two Opinions
|
