Two Systems, One Ignored
Well, it’s finally happened, folks. As of March 13th, Dominic Raab, Foreign Secretary for the United Kingdom, now considers the People’s Republic of China to be in a “state of ongoing non-compliance” with the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, after the “third breach in nine months”. Does this change a lot? Not necessarily.
As many may already know, the Joint Declaration was signed as a means of transferring control over the city of Hong Kong from the British Empire to the People’s Republic of China. The promise in exchange was that the city would maintain some degree of independence as a market and government for the next fifty years, and that, among other things, some form of democracy would be implemented. This, to be blunt, has only been upheld as much as has been convenient for the PRC. It is true that common law continues to be used in Hong Kong in the form of the Basic Law. The institution of any kind of democratically elected government, however, has been hampered by attempts from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to control the outcome and likely the contenders. The most recent restriction on participation in the electoral system is only of series of encroachments on independent jurisdiction in Hong Kong and her sister city Macao. Being “confrontational” towards the central government in Beijing or expressing opposition to the “socialist political system” have been disqualifying factors for decades. The attitude from Beijing seems to have been one of paranoia about providing Hong Kong with any means of making political statements against the CCP.
The issue is very much what can be considered the “legitimate” government of Hong Kong. From the time of its foundation, Hong Kong has been a trade city. A general lack of improvement unless strictly linked to business has been the standard attitude of first the British and then the Chinese for the past 180 or so years. Despite protests past and present, and some valiant if belated attempts at advancing the cause of democracy from the 1980s onwards, Hong Kong has not actually been allowed to develop its own sense of legal sovereignty. Both Britain and China preferred a city that was easy to control, that “fell in line”, despite the potential for political advancement demonstrated by Hong Kongers for decades. And Hong Kong, despite protests, riots, and ingenious innovations ignored by imperial governments, does not yet have the political cohesion to do otherwise.
To sum up: it is important that Britain be seen as taking a strong stance. It is equally important that China not believe it can ignore international treaties that directly affect the livelihood and security of its citizens. What China’s reply will be–whether a statement about the interference of Britain in other countries’ affairs, or further crackdowns on Hong Kong, or something else–is, so far, up in the air. Hong Kong is, quite literally, in China’s court.