Stop China’s Chipping Away at Hong Kong’s Autonomy : Geopolitics: Crown colony residents doubt China’s vows. U.S. legislation may help.

Since the signing in 1984 of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which will return Hong Kong to Chinese rule in 1997, the cloud hanging over Hong Kong has been darkening. Confidence in China’s commitment to honor provisions of the declaration, which promise a high degree of autonomy and preservation of Hong Kong’s capitalistic system for 50 years, has never been high. Recent events only serve to erode that confidence further.

China drafted and adopted the future mini-constitution of Hong Kong (the Basic Law) in 1990, with minimal consultation and despite overwhelming opposition from Hong Kong residents on many of its provisions. The Basic Law stipulates that only one-third of the post-1997 legislature will be popularly elected, and that the future chief executive will be elected by a consultative process reminiscent of sham elections in China. As retaliation for Hong Kong’s support of the 1989 pro-democracy movement in Beijing, China also states in the Basic Law that it reserves the right to impose martial law in Hong Kong. So much for future autonomy.

Against the spirit of the joint declaration, China in 1991 wrested from Britain the right to interfere in Hong Kong’s affairs before 1997 by refusing to honor financial arrangements for Hong Kong’s new airport. A memorandum of understanding on the future airport signed last September surrenders to China veto power over any large-scale project in Hong Kong before 1997. So much for current autonomy.

Then, behind closed doors, China and Britain reneged on a key provision of the joint declaration and Basic Law that allows Hong Kong to invite overseas judges to sit on its future Court of Final Appeal (the equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court) “as required” after 1997. Instead, without consulting Hong Kong residents, the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group reached an agreement last November to limit the number of overseas judges who can be invited to one. So much for judiciary independence.

With Britain eager to appease China, Hong Kong can expect little protection from its former colonial master after 1997. Hong Kong residents are therefore increasingly looking to the international community for support. The joint declaration is a bilateral treaty, put on record at the United Nations; U.N. members can therefore monitor its implementation. Thus the United States can play an important role in ensuring that provisions of the joint declaration are honored.

Bills introduced in the Senate and the House are important steps toward this end; hearings are being held this month in subcommittees of both houses on a proposed U.S.-Hong Kong policy act.

By giving U.S.-Hong Kong relations the force of law, the United States would put China on notice that it takes promises made in the joint declaration seriously. Legislation defining U.S.-Hong Kong policy would help to ensure the continuation of Hong Kong’s current system, since it would be more difficult for China to dismantle what is already entrenched.

There is absolutely no reason not to hold the Chinese accountable for what they promised back in 1984. A U.S.-Hong Kong policy act, reiterating what is written in the joint declaration, in no way constitutes interference in China’s internal affairs. Hong Kong is extremely vulnerable after 1997 unless the international community takes note of its impending peril. With the whole world watching, China’s aging rulers may be a bit more hesitant to crush the aspirations of 6 million people for freedom and democracy.