Monday, October 27, 2014

• Beijing’s Hong Kong Disinformation - L. GORDON CROVITZ

Beijing’s Hong Kong Disinformation

Declassified records show China always opposed democracy, even when Hong Kong was a colony.
By L. GORDON CROVITZ

Officials in Beijing claim they’re doing more for democracy in Hong Kong than Britain ever did in colonial days. 



“In 150 years, the country that now poses as an exemplar of democracy gave our Hong Kong compatriots not one single day of it,” declares an editorial in the Communist Party organ People’s Daily.


It’s pure disinformation.
Starting with the era of Mao Zedong, Chinese officials have fought against self-governance for Hong Kong, even threatening to invade if London extended democratic freedoms to the people of Hong Kong. Beijing’s resistance underscores the significance of the deal it negotiated with Britain in the 1980s pledging democracy for Hong Kong after the handover in 1997. Reneging on this commitment led hundreds of thousands of demonstrators to take to Hong Kong’s streets.


Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party Central Advisory Committee, Deng Xiaoping (L) and British Prime Minister Margareth Thatcher (R) talk in a file photo dated 24 September1982 at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.
According to recently declassified British records, Beijing warned London against democracy in Hong Kong soon after the communists took power on the mainland in 1949. 


In 1958 Premier Zhou Enlai opposed “a plot or conspiracy to make Hong Kong a self-governing dominion like Singapore.”
He warned that “China would regard any move toward dominion status as a very unfriendly act. China wished the present colonial status of Hong Kong to continue with no change whatever.” In 1960 Chinese officials went further: “We shall not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories liberated” if Britain permitted “self-government.”


Margaret Thatcher was taken aback when she encountered fierce opposition from Deng Xiaoping during the handover negotiations. 


According to the minutes of a key 1982 meeting, made public last year, Thatcher told the Chinese leader that “her duty, which she felt deeply, was to reach a result acceptable to the people of Hong Kong.” 


She reminded him that even with limited democracy, Hong Kong already had “a political system which was very different from that of China.” Deng responded by warning Britain not to make any changes that would raise expectations for democracy. He warned that “if there were very large disturbances in the next 15 years, the Chinese government would be forced to reconsider the time and formula” for the handover. This is the backdrop for the promise Britain managed to extract in the 1984 Joint Declaration, which pledged “one country, two systems,” and in Hong Kong’s post-handover Basic Law ensuring “universal suffrage.” 


It also helps explain why Beijing denounced the last British governor, Chris Patten, as a “serpent” and a “prostitute for 1,000 years” for his modest democratic reforms. This year’s Umbrella Movement protests were provoked by China’s August announcement that in 2017 it will continue its current practice of permitting only Beijing loyalists to run for chief executive.


Lawyers at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law this month published a detailed analysis of the treaties and laws relating to Hong Kong democracy.
They concluded that Britain, as cosignatory to the Joint Declaration, has “clear standing” to object to violations.
They show China agreed that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights applies in Hong Kong. That “means both the right to be elected as well as the right to vote,” the United Nations Human Rights Committee declared last week.


The British lawyers also noted the Basic Law promises “orderly progress” toward open elections.
The risks of delay, they write, include “civil disorder in Hong Kong, loss of confidence among Hong Kong people in the system of governance, and loss of international confidence in the commercial and investment environment in Hong Kong.”
Hong Kong’s Beijing-selected chief executive, C.Y. Leung, gave interviews last week opposing the right to vote as well as the right to run. 


“If it’s entirely a numbers game and numeric representation, then obviously you’d be talking to the half of the people in Hong Kong who earn less than [US]$1,800 a month,” he said.
“Then you would end up with that kind of politics and policies.”




Contrary to Mr. Leung’s remark, most Hong Kong people are proud of their free markets, economic mobility and low, flat income tax, which exempts most workers. In a free election, Hong Kong people would select candidates who pledge to protect Hong Kong’s independent judiciary and free press, restore its apolitical civil service and end favoritism for Beijing-friendly companies. Chinese officials fear that democracy in Hong Kong could encourage mainlanders to demand more freedoms for themselves. 

They oppose self-governance in Hong Kong for the same reason they always have: They know their repressive control could not survive a democratic vote—in Hong Kong or anywhere else in China.

No comments:

Post a Comment