It is a promise that the People’s Republic of China made with the people of Hong Kong in 1997. China, through the Sino-British Joint Declaration that it registered with the United Nations, and through Hong Kong’s Basic Law, pledged that for at least 50 years, Hong Kong would rule itself and its citizens would have a say in choosing their leaders. Nevertheless, two decades into the deal, these promises came undone with the deep-seated conflicts between Hong Kong and Beijing developing over basic freedoms and human rights in the city.
Promised Self-Governance Erodes
But it also represents, fundamentally, the breaking of promises the PRC made in 1997 under the “one country, two systems” principle, whereby Hong Kong was to be allowed a high degree of autonomy until 2047 with competence to preserve its free-market economy and independent judiciary, including those civil liberties that are unique from mainland China. An agreement to preserve those freedoms turned Hong Kong into an international center of finance, trade, and culture.
Since then, however, Beijing has tightened its grip on the city first through less overt means and then through more open interventions. In the past couple of years, though, events took a decided turn: the CCP began imposing policies that many considered a direct attack on Hong Kong’s autonomy. One of the most high-profile moves was the postponement of the 2020 Legislative Council elections, a move that delayed the opportunity to let Hong Kong’s citizens voice their opinions through the democratic process. That was widely criticized as a means of suppressing opposition voices on grounds of public health.
National Security Law as a Tool of Suppression
The introduction of the National Security Law in 2020 has marked an important turning point in that conflict. The law criminalizes acts of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign powers-undefined terms for which, in some cases, life imprisonment could be a possible sentence. It passed without meaningful debate in Hong Kong’s Legislative Council, where lawmakers were denied any opportunity to scrutinize its provisions. This dearth of transparency and oversight has engendered deep-seated fear that the law has become a political weapon to muzzle dissent and any challenge to the CCP’s authority.
The introduction of the law has witnessed Hong Kong’s once-vibrant civil society under unprecedented restrictions. Authorities have acted to remove books critical of the Chinese government from libraries and bookstores and have clamped down on freedom of expression. Slogans and symbols of democracy, once common in protests, have been officially banned. Schools have been obliged to monitor teachers and students for any sign of dissent-a self-censorship atmosphere far removed from the freedoms promised to Hong Kong citizens.
Disintegration of Freedoms and Response
Hong Kong’s prosperity has always come hand in hand with its freedoms. But the status of this city as an international financial center was hinged on the rule of law, free press, and open markets-all qualities that distinctly marked it from mainland China. Of late, though, all these core values have been grossly undermined by the actions of the PRC. The erosion of civil liberties, lack of democratic elections, has brought wide-scale disillusionment amongst its citizens.
Indeed, many citizens of Hong Kong have not kept silent while watching such changes. They have organized mass protests over the years, demanding to protect their rights and self-government. The 2019 protests, which were sparked off by the so-called extradition bill, took a broader form-against the growing influence of Beijing: millions of citizens went out into the streets, demanding democracy and greater independence for their city. Yet, such protests are now almost impossible with the introduction of the National Security Law, given the highly increased risk of arrest and subsequent imprisonment.
International Implications and the Global Response
This friction between Hong Kong and the PRC has reshaped not only the political contours of the city but has also drawn the attention of the international community. This move has drawn widespread condemnation from many states, including the United States, Great Britain, and nations within the European Union. The United States has implemented sanctions against Chinese individuals deemed to be responsible for undermining Hong Kong’s autonomy and thrown open special visa availability with regard to relocation by Hong Kong residents.
But despite that international outcry, Beijing has remained unmoved since, it considers what is going on in Hong Kong an exclusive internal affair. The CCP framed all these actions as necessary for stability and national security, calling for the avoidance of “foreign interference” and protection of Chinese sovereignty. This has resonated with the Chinese people but has widened the rift between China and those democratic countries worried about the loss of human rights in Hong Kong.
Conclusion: What’s Next for Hong Kong’s Quest for Self-Rule?
The turmoil in Hong Kong is symbolic of a deeper tussle between autonomy on paper and political control. The PRC, through actions, has completely rewritten the way Hong Kong relates with China and questions the very future of the “one country, two systems” rubric. In a scenario where freedom is increasingly curtailed, Hong Kong’s identity as a bastion of liberty and free expression is increasingly threatened.
While the people of Hong Kong have shown remarkable resilience in defending their rights, the way forward is not clear. Beijing’s measures instill a chilling effect that makes large-scale resistance hard, while geopolitical considerations limit the influence the international community can apply. However, the struggle for autonomy by Hong Kong remains a critical reminder of the importance international agreements have in the protection of the rights of all persons, especially against political repression.
