For Hong Kong citizens, comfort isn’t enough
International community needs to back their fight for basic rights
Some cities are monstrous obstacle courses. Scarred by potholes in the roads and bullet holes in the buildings, gorged with rusty cars and late buses, these cities push you back.
Hong Kong isn’t one of them. Its streets, tracks and harbour carry you forward, from trains that appear exactly when they say they will, to taxis that glide up before you flag them, to ferries that rock gently by the boardwalk, to open-air escalators that lift you high above the skyscrapers sprouting from the valley like a forest of great glassy trees. Hong Kong is hardly perfect, but it is a city that can make you believe you’ll never love another.
But the people of Hong Kong don’t love the current state their city is in, and they want more. Last week they issued a peaceful but damning rebuke to the central govern- ment of China. Hundreds of thousands choked their city’s gleaming streets in a mammoth protest, following a remarkable citizen-organized referendum in which nearly a quarter of Hong Kong’s registered voters defied Beijing’s wishes simply by voting in it. The citizens’ anger has been stoked by rising corruption and widening income inequalities; Hong Kong doesn’t carry everyone. Flames of discontent now lick at the island’s political system.
In June, the central government lit the fuse by issuing a white paper that encroached on the autonomy of Hong Kong and blunted the possibility of universal suffrage for Hong Kong citizens. The government asserted that it has “comprehensive jurisdiction” over Hong Kong; meanwhile, it promises only that it “may” allow each adult to have one vote in the 2017 election for Chief Executive, but will vet candidates.
Pro-China leaders have said that the people of Hong Kong care only about money; the citizens have proven otherwise, sounding the alarm that China is denying them basic rights and unlawfully encroaching on their region’s autonomy. They’ve sent a strong warning to Beijing.
As Beijing signals that it may violate the agreement it made with Britain guaranteeing Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy under “one country, two systems,” the international community must send a strong warning of its own.
It has failed in that, according to Human Rights Watch China director Sophie Richardson, who says governments remain “largely silent in the face of Beijing’s threats and intimidation towards Hong Kong.”
Maya Wang, Asia researcher for Human Rights Watch, tells me that foreign governments have to speak up.
They “should publicly tell the Hong Kong and central governments that they support universal suffrage in Hong Kong. They should call on the government to fulfil its legal obligations under the basic law and international law,” Wang says.
On this point, Canada doesn’t disappoint. A spokesman for the Department of Foreign Affairs tells me that Canada is firm in supporting universal suffrage for the people of Hong Kong, and for the uninterrupted autonomy for Hong Kong itself.
“Canada believes that the ongoing adherence to the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ policy ... remains essential. ... Canada reiterates its support for Hong Kong’s democratic development and for the implementation of universal suffrage for the election of the Chief Executive.”
Canada’s affirmation of democratic rights is important, but the strongest way to support democracy in Hong Kong is to support its most astonishing incarnation: the referendum, organized by and participated in by scores of citizens who defied a government that won’t even guarantee universal suffrage.
Foreign governments “should acknowledge that the unofficial referendum is a legitimate referendum,” Wang says.
The Canadian government stops short of that, only recognizing that it “demonstrates” an appetite for democracy. Canada’s support is weaker than what is required.
In defending their basic rights, the people of Hong Kong have risked their own safety in a gleaming city that raises fewer obstacles to comfort than most. They know that comfort isn’t enough. The international community should take a risk, too.