The unprecedented scenes of mass protests in Hong Kong, and their timing, have not gone unnoticed in the international community. The “umbrella protests” in Hong Kong, which, in many ways, resembled the “colour protests” in countries such as Georgia and Ukraine, occurred at a time when China was facing off with the United States over a host of issues. The “trade war” between the two was poised at a delicate stage.
The protests also coincided with the G20 meeting in Osaka, Japan. The protest leaders had petitioned the G20 leaders to bring up the issue in their meetings with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Among the G20 countries, only India and Indonesia refused to accept the petition from the Hong Kong protesters. U.S. President Donald Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe were among the leaders who brought up the issue during their meetings with President Xi on the sidelines of the G20 summit.
The so-called Umbrella Movement, which had its origins in the street protests of 2014, claims to champion the cause of democracy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China. The movement is mostly student-led, although the recent protests saw the participation of a cross section of society. The sheer numbers this time told its own story. Many Hong Kongers actually seemed to be swayed by the propaganda that the freedoms guaranteed to them under the “Basic Law” after the British left in 1997 were under threat.
Other protesters could have been motivated by the growing disparity and divide between the rich and the poor in Hong Kong. In the past, the mainland was poor and Hong Kong was rich. This is no longer the case. Guangzhou and Shenzhen have recently surpassed Hong Kong in gross domestic product. But the people in the former British colony still seem to have a superiority complex vis-a-vis the people from the mainland. They forget that Hong Kong had prospered mainly because it was a gateway to China until the country was opened up by Deng Xiaoping.
The recent protests began after the Hong Kong government’s decision to table a “fugitive offenders’ extradition” Bill in the legislature that would have allowed the extradition of people involved in serious economic and criminal offences from Hong Kong. Many Chinese nationals and foreigners seek refuge in Hong Kong after committing serious economic and other crimes on the mainland and elsewhere. The protesters claimed that the proposed “fugitive Bill” would put people residing in Hong Kong, locals as well as foreigners, at risk, besides eroding aspects of the “Basic Law”. They claimed that the legal system on the mainland could not be trusted to provide even the basic standards of judicial fairness.
The protests peaked in the last week of June and went out of control on July 1. On that day, a radical fringe consisting mainly of students went on the rampage and broke into the premises of the Hong Kong Legislative Assembly, known as Legco. July 1 is a public holiday known as “Establishment Day” in Hong Kong. It was the date on which the United Kingdom handed over the colony back to China. Windows were smashed, rooms were ransacked and anti-China graffiti was plastered on the walls of the Legislative Assembly. The violent demonstrators hung the colony’s British-era colonial flag after painting over an emblem displayed prominently in the Assembly chambers that states that Hong Kong is an integral part of the People’s Republic of China.
Church leaders, lawyers and student groups had joined in the chorus against the “extradition Bill”. But the violence triggered by a section of the protesters and the storming of the Assembly seems to have caused serious apprehensions in the ranks of the protesters. The Hong Kong authorities have given the protesters a long rope, as they have done in the past. There have been comparatively few arrests so far. There is a realisation among the people that Hong Kong’s status as a key global economic hub could be jeopardised if the protests are allowed to continue.
Western support
The Hong Kong street protests, despite taking a violent turn, have been supported by key Western governments. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo along with his British and German counterparts openly criticised the “extradition law”. Jeremy Hunt, the British Foreign Secretary, warned China of “serious consequences” if Beijing breached the “legally binding agreement” it had signed with the U.K. The Chinese Foreign Ministry retaliated immediately by accusing the U.K. of continuing to have a “colonial hangover”. It reminded the U.K. Foreign Secretary that China had implemented all aspects of the agreement with the U.K. leading to the handover of Hong Kong. “I need to re-emphasise that Hong Kong has now returned to its motherland,” the Chinese government spokesperson said. “The rights and obligations returned to the British side under the declaration have all been implemented. The U.K. at every turn considers itself a guardian; it is a delusion.”
China’s ambassador to the U.K., Liu Xiaoming, was more forthright in his criticism. He accused Hunt of interfering in Hong Kong’s affairs and supporting “violent demonstrators”. Liu said that the U.K. should “show respect” and keep its hands off “the semi-autonomous territory”. Hunt is in the race for the leadership of the Conservative Party. His opponent is Boris Johnson. Both of them have staked extreme right-wing positions on international issues and hark back to the glories of the U.K.’s imperial age.
Chris Patten, the last British Governor of Hong Kong, went to the extent of saying that Beijing was reneging on its promise to the people of Hong Kong by introducing a new extradition Bill. “It is a proposal, or a set of proposals which strikes a blow against the rule of law, against Hong Kong’s stability and security, against Hong Kong’s position as a great international trading hub,” Patten claimed in a statement. Representatives of 11 European Union nations also met with Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, to register their protests on the proposed changes.
Carrie Lam has been stressing all the while that the new Bill was being tabled with the sole purpose of plugging a legal loophole that is being exploited by criminals. A recent incident that caused a big outcry in Hong Kong involved a Hong Kong resident killing his pregnant girlfriend in Taiwan. As there is no extradition agreement with Taiwan, the Hong Kong government could not extradite the accused to the country to face trial for manslaughter, despite the requests of the authorities.
Safeguards in the Bill
There are enough safeguards in the Bill that the Hong Kong government is proposing that would prevent the extradition of any person who is at risk of conviction in the mainland on the grounds of his religious or political orientation. Under the provisions of the Bill, any person who faces torture or the death penalty will not be extradited from Hong Kong. For that matter, Hong Kong has signed mutual extradition treaties with 20 other countries, including the U.S., U.K., Canada and neighbouring countries such as the Philippines and Singapore.
Simon Young, a professor of law at the University of Hong Kong, told South China Morning Post that the proposed changes in the extradition laws would strengthen cooperation with Macau and Taiwan in combating commercial and financial crime. The Chinese government has said that it has played no role in Hong Kong’s decision to amend its extradition laws. At the same time, it has indicated its strong support for the move, strongly criticising the “actions and words” of some countries pertaining to the internal matters of Hong Kong.
Carrie Lam has consistently been denying the accusation that Beijing played a role in the drafting of the new legislation. She emphasised that the revision was necessary to better uphold the law and fulfil international commitments. The amendments would cover around 37 offences, including those related to fraud and other white-collar crimes. Under the proposed amendments, only China’s highest court and top prosecutor will be allowed to file an extradition request.
The protesters’ main demands—the withdrawal of the extradition Bill and the resignation of Carrie Lam—have not been taken seriously by the authorities. The Chief Executive has said that her government will stay the course, though it has suspended the tabling of the extradition Bill for the time being until tempers cool down. She said in the first week of July that she would be more responsive to public sentiment and seek out divergent views to find a solution to the impasse with the protesters.
“The violence and the lawlessness has seriously affected the core values of Hong Kong’s legal system,” Carrie Lam told the media. “I feel very indignant and saddened by this and want to strongly condemn it. I believe the public also thinks the same.” However, there is some criticism at the haste in which Carrie Lam tried to push through the extradition law. She had evidently assured Beijing that public opinion, swayed by the murder of the pregnant Hong Kong woman in Taiwan, would support the move. Beijing had warned the Hong Kong government to take the public on board before tabling the Bill.
