Standing up for Hong Kong
An overarching and vaguely worded national security law imposed on Hong Kong this week marks the end of an era. A spokesman for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the new measure – drafted in secret and hastily promulgated – would end protests and make Hong Kong “stable and harmonious” again. A fairer description, from a legal scholar at New York University, characterised the law as “a takeover of Hong Kong.” Among its many sweeping provisions, the legislation defines harm to government property as a subversive act that can, in “grave” cases, result in life imprisonment; comparable penalties are available for loosely defined acts of separatism, collusion with foreign countries, and terrorism.
The new law’s scope is so broad that Human Rights Watch’s China director warned that local activists “accustomed to operating in [a] mostly rights-respecting environment, now face a frightening void.” Beijing can refer “complex” cases to the mainland where a compliant judiciary will almost certainly find in the government’s favour. Furthermore, if China’s appalling human rights record is any indication of the likely future, detainees could be held for up to six months, denied access to family members or lawyers, and face mistreatment or torture. Foreigners, too, could face penalties if they support sanctions against China or calls for the independence of Hong Kong.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeted that America would not “stand idly by while China swallows Hong Kong into its authoritarian maw” and Facebook, Google and Twitter announced a temporary halt on processing requests for user data from the Hong Kong government. Facing the prospect of a US pushback, TikTok suspended its sales in Hong Kong and said it would presently shut down the platform for local users. The rare ethical overlap between these companies is due to the security law’s assertion of global jurisdiction. In theory it could force the platforms to choose between sharing user data of suspected dissidents or exposing local employees to prosecution, and jail time, for denying government requests.
Less than halfway through Hong Kong’s 50year transition, President Xi is gambling that the West is too engrossed by the pandemic to counter his party’s authoritarianism. The odds, at least for now, seem in his favour. Despite sabre-rattling in Washington and the promise of safe-havens in Australia and the UK, foreign powers can do little, at least if they continue to act unilaterally. China’s economic power has allowed its diplomats to interpose themselves in relationships with most of America’s traditional allies. Persuading these allies to disengage from lucrative trade agreements becomes harder each year. President Trump’s impulsive and incoherent hot-and-cold postures towards Beijing have effectively ruled out the possibility of America showing leadership on this issue.
Yet, despite Beijing’s increasingly imperial behaviour, its leadership remains vulnerable to public opinion. The coronavirus outbreak has been a considerable national embarrassment; so has the repression of the Uighurs and the crackdown in Hong Kong. Rather than simply condemn the CCP’s overreach, the West still has a chance – providing it speaks decisively, and with a single voice – to encourage democratic norms rather than simply condemn China for its transgressions while doing nothing meaningful to end them A concerted rebuke is extremely important, for what is permitted in Hong Kong will determine what happens in Taiwan, and beyond. If Hong Kong can be silenced, further silence is bound to follow.