Hong Kong security law violates 'one country, two systems' formula
China has legislated a Hong Kong national security law, drawing international criticism for tightening its control in the semi-autonomous Chinese territory. This law runs counter to Beijing's much-touted policy of "one country, two systems," under which the territory is allowed to keep its autonomy in civil, legal and economic institutions.
On Thursday, the National People's Congress voted for the legislation. The law is designed to curb sedition, secession, foreign interference and terrorism in Hong Kong. The Chinese congress regrettably disregarded international society's worries about the potential adverse effects of the security law on the future of Hong Kong.
In a nutshell, the legislation is nothing but a move by the Chinese authorities to stifle the basic rights of Hong Kong citizens and disregard universal democratic values. It reveals Beijing's outright political intention of imposing direct control on the city. It also spells an end to Hong Kong's special status which is supposed to allow the city a certain level of freedom and autonomy for 50 years from 1997 when Britain returned it to China.
It is easy to fathom what will happen to Hong Kong and its 7 million citizens after the security law goes into effect. The city can no longer serve as Asia's financial hub and global economic gateway to China. Nor can it maintain a free market economy, an independent judiciary and legislative autonomy. Citizens there will be unable to enjoy free speech and other basic liberties.
The legislation is also feared to have negative implications on issues relating to Taiwan, the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region and the South China Sea. It should be understood in the context of a more assertive China which seeks global hegemony. Thus it is inevitable for Beijing to take a head-on clash with its rival ― the United States.
In response to the Chinese move, U.S. President Donald Trump immediately announced measures to end Hong Kong's special trade status and suspend the visas of Chinese graduate students who are suspected of acquiring trade knowledge and conducting research for the Chinese government and military. It would be unfortunate if the two countries cannot avoid the worst-case scenario.
But no one can rule out the possibility of Trump implementing his threat, which he made last month, of cutting off ties with China. Trump might also nullify the Phase 1 trade deal reached with Beijing earlier this year. These factors could add fuel to an emerging new Cold War and a trade war between the two superpowers.
To avoid catastrophic consequences, China should first refrain from escalating tensions with the U.S. It needs to consider delaying the follow-up legislation process of the Hong Kong security law. Clearly, Trump would be served best if he does not try to use the China issue to his advantage as part of his desperate re-election bid.
We hope that both countries will stop their rivalry and ease tensions. They will gain more from cooperation, not confrontation, especially in the face of the coronavirus pandemic and its devastating impact on the global economy.
China has legislated a Hong Kong national security law, drawing international criticism for tightening its control in the semi-autonomous Chinese territory. This law runs counter to Beijing's much-touted policy of "one country, two systems," under which the territory is allowed to keep its autonomy in civil, legal and economic institutions.
On Thursday, the National People's Congress voted for the legislation. The law is designed to curb sedition, secession, foreign interference and terrorism in Hong Kong. The Chinese congress regrettably disregarded international society's worries about the potential adverse effects of the security law on the future of Hong Kong.
In a nutshell, the legislation is nothing but a move by the Chinese authorities to stifle the basic rights of Hong Kong citizens and disregard universal democratic values. It reveals Beijing's outright political intention of imposing direct control on the city. It also spells an end to Hong Kong's special status which is supposed to allow the city a certain level of freedom and autonomy for 50 years from 1997 when Britain returned it to China.
It is easy to fathom what will happen to Hong Kong and its 7 million citizens after the security law goes into effect. The city can no longer serve as Asia's financial hub and global economic gateway to China. Nor can it maintain a free market economy, an independent judiciary and legislative autonomy. Citizens there will be unable to enjoy free speech and other basic liberties.
The legislation is also feared to have negative implications on issues relating to Taiwan, the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region and the South China Sea. It should be understood in the context of a more assertive China which seeks global hegemony. Thus it is inevitable for Beijing to take a head-on clash with its rival ― the United States.
In response to the Chinese move, U.S. President Donald Trump immediately announced measures to end Hong Kong's special trade status and suspend the visas of Chinese graduate students who are suspected of acquiring trade knowledge and conducting research for the Chinese government and military. It would be unfortunate if the two countries cannot avoid the worst-case scenario.
But no one can rule out the possibility of Trump implementing his threat, which he made last month, of cutting off ties with China. Trump might also nullify the Phase 1 trade deal reached with Beijing earlier this year. These factors could add fuel to an emerging new Cold War and a trade war between the two superpowers.
To avoid catastrophic consequences, China should first refrain from escalating tensions with the U.S. It needs to consider delaying the follow-up legislation process of the Hong Kong security law. Clearly, Trump would be served best if he does not try to use the China issue to his advantage as part of his desperate re-election bid.
We hope that both countries will stop their rivalry and ease tensions. They will gain more from cooperation, not confrontation, especially in the face of the coronavirus pandemic and its devastating impact on the global economy.
