Roadmap to stop China in Hong Kong
About the Authors:
Zhang Wai
Chinese journalist and University student
(authors name is a pseudonym. The identity is known by CIPO)
Peter Hjorth
former Parliamentary candidate and founder of The Democratic Party of Denmark (www.detdemokratiskeparti.dk)
Hong Kong
Executive Summary
On the 70th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party’s rule on 1st October 2019, China’s President Xi Jinping said; “No force can stop the Chinese people and the Chinese nation forging ahead.” And he continued; “We will advance peaceful development of cross-strait relations, unite the whole country and continue to strive forward the complete unification of our country.”
Self-confidence is good to have – we know this from other great nations - but when the great superpowers of the World violate international laws in pursuit of control and power, the game plan have to be stopped, and if there are anybody left strong enough to remind the dominant power of their violations, they better speak up before they lose influence and eventually themselves.
In the recent conflict with Hong Kong, China has violated international law and are kidnapping citizens from HK to mainland China for possible lifetime punishment. Hong Kong was promised to keep their way of life until at least 2047.
If the recent decades of global politics continue, China will have its way and only meet a few sanctions and diplomatic conversations as response.
What will it mean for the prevailing norms in international relations to be decided by an authoritarian state where freedoms of speech, press, and assembly are extinguished for its citizens and those under its power? If we lose the next decade, we'll soon find out. The democratic world should be consolidating, integrating, pushing back and cutting China off from the things that will enable the continued rise toward their vision of power.
A complete Roadmap to success is listed in the end of the report.
Hong Kong, 2020
Table of content
The history of Hong Kong
The “Basic Law”
The national security law
The role of the Hong Kong government
Enforcement of the new Law
Reactions from the world
Reactions from China
Reactions from United Nations
Recent developments
The role of the United Nations
Recommended responsive actions to the Chinese violations
Bypass UN with a strong alliance of nations
China as the superpower of the future
Military solution
The Roadmap to ensure the Hong Kong populations way of living
Roadmap to change China
Conclusion
The history of Hong Kong
British ships began to visit Chinese harbors around 1635 for trade purposes. Hong Kong consists approx. 3.000 inhabitants living in some fishermen villages along the coastline. Britain was strong at that time with India as colony. The trade developed over the centuries, and the Indian produced opium became a trading goods for Chinese silver and tea. But the Chinese Qing dynasty saw the opium drug abuse rise and create social instability and banned the import. But it led to two wars, the Opium Wars, and the first one ended in 1842. Here the Nanking agreement was signed. Hong Kong was now British territory. When the Second Opium War ended in 1860, Britain acquired Kowloon (next to Hong Kong). After another conflict in 1898, which involved Japan and a despite about Korean territory, Britain leased an extended Hong Kong area called “New Territories” - mainly for defense purposes around Kowloon Hong Kong Peninsula. The lease agreement was set for 99 years, never believing they would have to give it back again. The Germans, French and Russians also got some leases at that time.
Hong Kong develops in the next 100 years from a sparsely populated area to 7 million inhabitants and one of the world most wealthy finance centers.
But as the expiration of the lease agreement set to end in 1997 get closer, the world has changed, and what in 1898 seems to be “good as ever” agreement, now faces the reality of modern western democratic thinking, and Britain decides to make a handover agreement of Hong Kong to China. British Margaret Thatcher and Chinese Premier Zhao Ziyang signs the agreement - Sino-British Joint Declaration - in 1984, deciding the terms for the 1997 handover. China agrees that it would not practice the socialist system in mainland China in Hong Kong, and Hong Kong's existing capitalist system and way of life would be unchanged for 50 years until 2047. The agreement is registered in UN, and it clearly states that "The whole makes up a formal international agreement, legally binding in all its parts. An international agreement of this kind is the highest form of commitment between two sovereign states."
But then things take another direction. Beijing began plans to reverse this law almost immediately after the handover in 1997. China increasingly violates the agreement, and in 2014 Chinese officials consider the Joint Declaration "now void and only covered the period from the signing in 1984 until the handover in 1997." In 2017 China's foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said the legally binding Hong Kong handover treaty with Britain “as a historical document, no longer has any practical significance” and that “It is not at all binding for the central government's management over Hong Kong. The UK has no sovereignty, no power to rule and no power to supervise Hong Kong after the handover.”
In 2015, five people involved in selling books critical of the Chinese gov- ernment disappeared and later reappeared in Chinese custody. In a Chinese billionaire living in Hong Kong named Xiao Jianhua was abducted from his apartment in Hong Kong by Chinese security forces, and in 2018, 19-year-old Hong Kong resident Chan Tong-kai murdered his pregnant girlfriend Poon Hiu-wing in Taiwan, then returned to Hong Kong. Chan admitted to Hong Kong police that he killed Poon, but the police were unable to charge him for murder or extradite him to Taiwan because no agreement is in place. The independent government of Hong Kong then in 2019 proposed a Bill to establish a mechanism for transfers of fugitives not only for Taiwan, but also for Mainland China and Macau. This sparked the 2020 demonstrations, as the Hong Kong population fear China's newfound ability through this bill to arrest voices of political dissent in Hong Kong. The Bill was first only suspended, but after heavy international and domestic pressure later withdrawn, but Beijing's involvement in the proposed bill caused great concerns in Hong Kong.
The “Basic Law”
And now it gets complicated. As part of the handover agreement, China has made a Basic Law 6 that regulates the relationship with Hong Kong. In the Basic Law, Hong Kong residents are equal before the law. Hong Kong residents have, among other things, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and of publication; freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of procession, of demonstration, of communication, of movement, of conscience, of religious belief, and of marriage; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike. The freedom of the person of Hong Kong residents shall be inviolable. No Hong Kong resident can be arbitrarily or unlawfully arrested, detained or imprisoned or unlawful search of the body of any resident, deprivation or restriction of the freedom of the person are also prohibited. Torture of any resident and arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of the life of any resident shall be prohibited.
As part of the Basic Law, Hong Kong government should make a national security law, but has never managed to do so, mostly because of Chinese influence and protests. Attempts were made in 1996, 2003 and 2010. Now since Basic Law is incorporated in Chinese Law, the National People’s Con- gress have now in 2020 made a new law, that fills the gap in the Hong Kong legislation, and therefore is considered valid for Hong Kong. This law is violating the Basic Law in many ways. China is expecting the Hong Kong government to introduce the same law as soon as possible, which is not going to happen with the people of Hong Kong’s approval. The Chinese national security law took effect on 30 June 2020.
The national security law
While not carrying life sentences, peaceful protesters could see 10 years in prison if it is judged the protest movement has foreign links, and freedoms will be limited as all "foreign groups, organizations and media" will be subject to oversight from the Chinese government. Chinese intelligence agencies will be present in Hong Kong, and have powers that go above all Hong Kong laws, with Chinese agents in Hong Kong having immunity from criminal liability. Damage of transport facilities is being considered a terrorism offence. Article 29 of the law criminalizes "inciting hatred of the central government and Hong Kong's regional government". This also seems to cover written works: on 5 July, at least nine books about democracy were made unavailable in Hong Kong as they were removed or reviewed for violating the law. Article 38 details how foreign nationals committing acts outside of Hong Kong and China are criminally liable under the law, and that such foreigners could be arrested upon arrival in Hong Kong. China might take over a prosecution: complicated foreign interference cases, 'very serious' cases and when national security faces 'serious and realistic threats.” The law further explains that the action does not need to be violent, and that the minimum sentence in such cases will be 10 years. Hong Kong's judges are independent and can appropriately interpret the law, which the Chinese government will not accept, and so judges will be appointed for this matter by the Chief Executive directly. This is "effectively installed by Beijing".
Crimes of secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces are punishable by a minimum sentence of three years, with the maximum being life. It also says:
Damaging public transport facilities - which often happened during the 2019 protests - can be considered terrorism.
Beijing will establish a new security office in Hong Kong, with its own law enforcement personnel - neither of which would come under the local authority's jurisdiction.
Inciting hatred of China's central government and Hong Kong's regional government are now offences under Article 29.
The law can also be broken from abroad by non-residents under Article 38, and this could mean that foreigners could be arrested on arrival in Hong Kong.
Some trials will be heard behind closed doors.
Beijing will also have power over how the law should be interpreted, and not any Hong Kong judicial or policy body. If the law conflicts with any Hong Kong law, the Beijing law takes priority.
Zhang Xiaoming, executive deputy director of Beijing's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office said the law would not be applied to offences committed before it was passed and that suspects arrested in Hong Kong on charges of violating the law may be tried on the mainland.
Chief Executive Carrie Lam, Hong Kong's pro-Beijing leader, said the law would "restore stability"8 and that it was "considered the most important development in relations between the central government and Hong Kong since the handover".
Since the enactment of the law several people have been arrested for breaking the new law.
The role of the Hong Kong government
In the “one country, two systems” agreement, that according to the agreement should rule the relationship between Hong Kong and China until 2047, Hong Kong will have a local government in place. This government is headed by chief executive Carrie Lam.
But Carrie Lam welcomed the adoption of the draft decision on national security law, stressing that the SAR government will "fully cooperate with the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) to complete the relevant work on legislation as soon as possible." The first concrete details of the legislation were announced on 15 June 2020, but by the time the NPCSC were approving final drafts on 29 June 2020, Carrie Lam had still not seen a draft of the law. In an interview with CNBC, last British governor Chris Patten called Lam a "lamentable and quisling figure in Hong Kong history" for mishandling the city’s political crisis which led to the national security law which, in his view, undermined the city’s rule of law and judicial independence, posing a threat to the cherished freedoms that have allowed Hong Kong to thrive.
A product of this system, Lam is, similarly, not a politician by trade, nor is she a natural one. “Carrie Lam was a bureaucrat,” said Zeman, the developer. “They think narrow rather than deep, and that has been one of the problems here.” This lack of political acumen and leadership has been laid bare over the past year as she disappeared from public view for days on end, struggled to explain the extradition bill to foreign governments and businesses, and bounced from one poorly devised strategy to the next, before digging in and standing unwaveringly behind the police as they attempted to arrest away a problem that is at its core political.
In August 2020, Lam and ten other officials were sanctioned by the United States under an executive order by President Trump for undermining Hong Kong's autonomy.
Enforcement of the new Law
On August 10, 2020, more than 200 Hong Kong police officers raided the headquarters of Apple Daily, a major pro-democracy newspaper, and arrested its owner, Jimmy Lai, for “colluding with foreign elements,” “incitement,” and “conspiracy to defraud.” Police also arrested Lai’s two sons and four top executives of the Next Media group, the parent com- pany of Apple Daily. One executive, Royston Chow Tat-kuen, was arrested for “colluding with foreign elements” and “conspiracy to defraud,” while the other executives and Lai’s sons were each arrested for one of these alleged crimes. A fifth executive, Mark Simon, who lives abroad, is also wanted by Hong Kong police, Apply Daily said.
Mr. Lai's arrest has been welcomed by Chinese state media, who have described him as a "riot supporter" and his publications as having been "instigating hatred, spreading rumors and smearing Hong Kong authorities and the mainland for years".
The Hong Kong police arrested a prominent pro-democracy politician, Ag- nes Chow, as well as activists Wilson Li and Andy Li for “colluding with foreign elements.
On August 10, 2020, Beijing authorities also placed unspecified sanctions on Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, and 10 other US citizens for “having behaved badly in matters related to Hong Kong”.
Hong Kong arrested 10 pro-democracy figures on August 10 for “national security crimes”.
Reactions from the world
An Inter-Parliamentary Alliance10 on China launched on June 5, 2020 “to construct appropriate and coordinated responses, and to help craft a pro- active and strategic approach on issues related to the People's Republic of China.” US Republican Senator Marco Rubio and Democrat Bob Menendez, former Japanese defense minister Gen Nakatani, European Parlia- ment foreign affairs committee member Miriam Lexmann and prominent UK Conservative lawmaker Iain Duncan Smith are all co-chairs of the newly launched group. The list of participating nations includes the US, Germany, UK, Japan, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Norway, as well as members of the European parliament. Several of those nations have faced intense economic or political consequences for crossing China's strategic ambitions. China responded; “We urge a small number of politicians to respect facts, respect the basic rules of international relations, abandon a Cold War mentality, stop interfering in domestic affairs and making political moves for selfish interests” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told a regular news briefing in Beijing.
On July 31, 2020, Human Rights Watch and 16 other civil society organizations issued a public letter11 calling on 40 governments around the world to act to uphold human rights in Hong Kong. The letter includes recom- mendations, ranging from imposing targeted sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong government officials, to supporting the call by the United Na- tions human rights experts.
The EU expressed "grave concerns" that the law could "seriously undermine "the city's independence".
The UK has now said up to three million Hong Kong residents will be offered the chance to settle in the UK and ultimately apply for citizenship.
In the US, lawmakers from both parties have launched a bill to give refugee status to Hong Kong residents at risk of persecution, reported local media outlets.
Taiwan's government has said it will set up a special office to help those in Hong Kong facing immediate political risks.
Reactions from China
On May 29, 2020, CCP’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian commented13 at a regular press conference that Pompeo ’s remarks regarding Hong Kong “completely violated the basic norms of international relations and seriously interfered in China ’s internal affairs.”
Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian's Regular Press Conference on June 30, 2020:14
“Hong Kong is one of China's special administrative regions and its affairs are China's internal affairs. The Chinese government is firmly determined to implement "one country, two systems" and oppose foreign interference in Hong Kong affairs. Nobody and nothing could shake the Chinese government and people's resolution and will to safeguard national sovereignty and security and uphold Hong Kong's prosperity and stability. Any attempt seeking to undermine China's sovereignty, security and development interests is doomed to fail.”
Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian's Regular Press Conference on July 1, 202015:
“The national security legislation in the HKSAR is by no means a human rights issue, still less should it be politicized. A tiny number of external elements, with ulterior motives, have been meddling in this under the pre-text of human rights. But nothing can cover up their arrogance, prejudice and real intention to flagrantly interfere in China's internal affairs. Some people advertise themselves as respecting rule of law, but what they have done showed no regard for the just voices of the international community calling for adherence to the principles of international law and basic norms of the international relations. We urge the relevant parties to grasp the situation, view the legislation in an objective and impartial way, stop fact-distorting and slandering acts, and stop interfering in Hong Kong matters and China's internal affairs.”
“I'd like to reiterate that the legislation on safeguarding national security in the HKSAR is entirely China's internal affair that allows no foreign interference. The Chinese government is firm in its determination to safeguard China's sovereignty, security and development interests, to implement the principle of "one country, two systems" and to oppose any external interference in Hong Kong affairs. We urge the US side to view the Law in a fair, objective manner, immediately stop interfering in our internal affairs under the pretext of Hong Kong, and refrain from going further down the wrong path.”
Reactions from United Nations
A 30 June 2020 meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council saw a majority of countries express support for the law. The British ambassador to the UN presented a statement on behalf of 27 other countries to the UN, criticizing the law . The Cuban ambassador responded with a statement on behalf of 52 other countries, 50 of which are listed as either unfree or partly free by Freedom in the World, in support of the law, stating that "Hong Kong affairs are China's internal affairs that brook no interference by foreign forces." China have tight economic connections with most of the countries that express support for the law.
Recent developments
In recent developments 30 July 2020, 12 opposition candidates will not be able to run in elections for the Hong Kong legislature this September, and more candidates could be barred soon, authorities have said on Thursday. The government pointed to advocating for self-determination, urging foreign intervention, and "expressing an objection in principle" to national security law as reasons for ban. Popular Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong said he was also among the 12 barred politicians, despite his victory in the primary vote held within the pro-democracy bloc. "The excuse they use is that I describe [the national security law] as a draconian law," the 23-year-old political leader said.
The day after on 31 July 2020, Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam announced that she was delaying the election planned for September 6, 2020 because of mounting concern about the coronavirus pandemic. She said the election would instead be held on September 5, 2021.
On August 7, 2020, foreign ministers of the "core Anglosphere" nations (Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US) condemned the Hong Kong government for postponing the legislative council elections. The statement said the governments — whose intelligence cooperation is known as the Five Eyes alliance — were "gravely concerned" by the disqualification of pro-democracy candidates. ”We call on the Hong Kong government to reinstate the eligibility of disqualified candidates so that the elections can take place in an environment conducive to the exercise.
The role of the United Nations
UN is the only worldwide body, that are regarded as the legal institution for cross border interventions. If a majority of the Security Council decides that a country is breaching commonly accepted international laws, then many member countries of the UN would regard that as a valid decision to take action.
But if many member states are financially dependent, or even their security depend on another state, then what we in most Western nations would regard as international law could be disregarded. Are the Western nations always right? No, but in this case an agreement should be an agreement. A text is a text. We have agreed upon this important handover, and still one part is not honoring the terms.
Many member states of the UN do not believe in the principles of justice like most Western democracies does. One member of the Security Council can veto any proposal. The conclusion is clear. If the Western democracies believe in justice for all humanity, they are not going to find it in UN. There are many other good things happening in UN. Programs to improve human rights and climate issues etc., but still with no empowerment. No consequences to non-compliance.
Can we exchange UN with a more powerful, global construction? Well, not if the decisions on actions have to be democratically made. Because then we have the same dilemma.
But if it’s the majority that democratically has made the decision, shouldn’t all accept that? Well, can a non-democracy make a democratic decision? Why should one benefit of the democracy governance model, when they are not themselves a democracy? Are Belarus and Russia democracies? If there are different opinions about that, who are to decide and give the final answer? What if the population of a country doesn't have free access to information? Can we then accept their vote?
CIPO would like to see a new and innovative solution to global politics and geopolitics in general. If not, the number of unfree or partly unfree countries in the world could outnumber the democracies, and a decision have to be made. Which direction would we like to see the world move towards?
The time has come for democratic countries to unite in a common defense of our shared values.
Recommended responsive actions to the Chinese
General Secretary Xi Jinping made a speech to the Politburo in January 2013:
“Most importantly, we must concentrate our efforts on ... building a socialism that is superior to capitalism and laying the foundation for a future where we will win the initiative and have the dominant position.”
There should be no doubt about what is to come.
China’s breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and clear violation of international law calls for action.
Breaches of international law occurs all regularly around the world, but the strong institution of the national state allows this to continue.
Bypass UN with a strong alliance of nations
The United Nations are locked in their own system. EU are imposing smaller actions together with the US. Sanctions and bans. But it is clear, that China does not change their mind, and no one seem to be able to do anything about it. Russia annexed Crimea, and all that have been done are sanctions and bans, without any geopolitical consequence as a result.
Forming an alliance seem to be the best solution, but some potential members have their own issues with human rights violations. After the United Nations Human Rights Council issued a scathing report20 on the US human rights record in 2015, and made 348 recommendations for improvement, covering such areas as police brutality, racial profiling and the treatment of migrant families, the US response shortly after Pompeo's confirmation in 2018 was not to put things right, but to announce its withdrawal from the council.
Had the report been taken seriously, many of the problems associated with the killing of George Floyd in May might have been avoided, although apparently none of the Five Eyes dared mention this to Pompeo.
If the Five Eyes really wanted to do something positive about human rights, they could, for example, raise with Pompeo the situation of the prisoners held for years without trial at the US military prison in Guan- tanamo Bay, Cuba, given that this would be abhorrent in their own countries.
But US can only be left out of a strong alliance, if EU could go it alone and apply the pressure themselves. Unfortunately, EU are not there yet in terms of unity and the parliamentary system with veto rights. There are member states that will say no. The military would though be sufficient, should that come into play, and as well as the financial power. But US is mandatory due to its strengths.
The strongest alliance would consist of the following countries;
The Five Eyes and 5-9 European democracies; preferably Austria, Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Netherlands and Belgium, and could also include additional other countries, that supported the statement against China from United Nations Human Rights Council meeting on June 30, 2020; Estonia, Ireland, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Switzerland.
“China is a big country”. Through its assertive diplomacy it also likes to remind us that we are smaller. But we are not small – as long as we stand together.
China as the superpower of the future
History has already given us the answer to what will probably happen in the near future. A war of sanctions and harsh wordings will fly through the air, but nothing changes for Hong Kong. There could be a new national security law passed through the Hong Kong legislation and in a slightly less restrictive form, but only if China have control over the next Hong Kong leader. China will continue to have boots on the ground in Hong Kong and to violate the Basic Law and the promised “way of life” for the Hong Kong population until 2047. The unrest will continue for another 27 years, and China would have won the war.
And this brings up the broader global perspective. China is getting stronger both economically and militarily. They have developed new sophisticated military equipment, that in certain areas is the best in the world. China are strengthening ties with many countries worldwide and buying influence. The communistic dictatorship is on the path to becoming the biggest superpower of the world, and this is the problem. The massive violations of human rights cannot be ignored, or the world will slowly but steadily turn into another prison with enormous restrictions on personal freedom and justice.
This is a defining moment in the worlds history where the free world has to wake up and be brave enough to save it from communism.
Military solution
To ensure the safety of the densely populated Hong Kong area, a military aggression is out of the question. Unless the population are already being unsafe to a warlike extend from China. Unfortunately, it is not unlikely that a situation could arise, where the public resistance becomes so violent, that China decides to send in military machinery, and there have already been reported of Chinese military equipment close to the borders. But from a military point of view the alliance would face difficult choices, as a war with the Chinese military in Hong Kong totally would destroy the city, and China of course have the advantage of already being on the mainland. A traditional war would include Navy battles and if extended a World War 3.
The Roadmap to ensure the Hong Kong populations way of living
China is deeply dependent on production and trade, and The Five Eyes and EU are the main customers. It is also well known, that the Chinese Communist Party and leadership are very sensitive to loss of growth and prosperity of the Chinese population. A total seizure of trade with China would immediately lower the living standards, and an additional ban of traveling would limit the Chinese people’s faith on the dictatorship. Especially when it could have been avoided, if they had agreed to the agreement described below.
Roadmap to save Hong Kong:
-
Ensure a free election for the Legislative Council (LegCo) of Hong Kong as soon as possible
-
Adopt a new National Security Law, that excludes Chinese interference in Hong Kong
If China is still interfering, which is almost certain, the alliance of free countries has to be prepared with the following action; China will be asked to sign the following agreement;
The free alliance “Global Justice” Agreement:
-
China agree to abide to international law, and not interfere in Hong Kong’s internal affairs
-
China agree to give the Chinese population free access to the Internet
-
China agree to follow a plan for acceleration of improving human rights, animal welfare and climate changes
-
China agree to change its electoral system and allow free and democratic elections
If China does not sign and follow these terms, the following consequences will be imposed;
The free alliance “Security Declaration No. 1”
1. The alliance will immediately stop all trade, investments and activities in and out of China
2. The alliance will immediately impose a travel ban for all Chinese citizens
3. The alliance will actively work on obstructing China’s international network
If this roadmap solution was not there, and other solution models does not come to the table soon, then we will see a continued unrest in Hong Kong, and a more self-confident China that soon will want to expand geopolitically, and probably eye Taiwan as next to come.
It is the expectation, that if China was presented to the above-mentioned roadmap, and they were convinced of the alliance’ will and determination make it happen, China would have no other choice than agreeing to the terms and abide to the international law. They would still have the Hong Kong hand-over agreement for 2047, and they would most probably make most of the Chinese people happy to give free access to the internet, and only see very few negative consequences of doing so. The last point of improving human rights, animal welfare and climate change would also not be such a difficult issue to agree to. The alternative of a drastically declining economy and travel ban for all Chinese would to a much higher degree invoke civil unrest and instability.
Roadmap to change China
“Officially, China is a multi-party socialist state under the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC). There are a small number of independent candidates for people's congress, particularly in neighborhoods of major cities, who sometimes campaign using weibos posts on the internet.
Although there is no legal requirement for either membership in or ap- proval by the Communist Party, in practice the membership of the higher people's congresses and people's governments are largely determined by the Party. Independent candidates are strongly discouraged and face government intervention in their campaigns. In practice, the power of parties other than the Communist Party of China is eliminated. Because none of the minor parties have independent bases of support and rely on Communist Party approval for appointment to positions of power, none have the capacity to serve as a true opposition party.”
To make a change in China by using the electoral system will take many decades. There is still heavy support for the CPC, as the voters can be influenced by the rigorous system and suppressed by force. The population will be the place to start, as in many other cases, as the will to change is mandatory from inside. If not, a system change will not last long. The Chinese people will have to get the true story of the intentions of the alliance and the censoring of information from the CPC. This will be done by intensive infiltration of the still open internet related ways of communication. At the same time the CPC will get weakened as the stop of trade, activities and travel bans will create some civil instability and a wish for change. Military pressure should not be visible to the people, as fear of war tends to give extra governmental support.
All together the pressure should eventually make the CPC ready to open up for free elections and accept the proposed agreements from the alliance. China will keep its sovereignty, and the country will get richer again.
If China at this point refuse to agree to the alliance’ ultimatum and abide to generally accepted international law and signed treaties for fundamental human rights, then the next step will be the inevitable military solution. It is not an option to draw back at this point, as China will continue to gain influence, and this will keep the world in an unsecure and unstable for decades, and maybe centuries to come.
It is not a time for the militarily passive European nations to cut military funding, when the global geopolitical situation is unstable. The world is heading into a new global conflict, and passivity from the free world will with highest probability end up with a new world order of communism and dictatorship. China should also consider their aspirations of world dominance, as this will not happen without conflict. There will be a price to pay, and it would be better for China to keep China as it is today, instead of risking everything. Give up Hong Kong and Taiwan, and abide to inter- national law, and together we can create a better world.
Conclusion
It must have consequence to break international law, and in this case, China is the upcoming superpower of the world, and its Hong Kong interference impacts a whole population of 7 million people, so the consequences are very powerful. That’s why it is important to take the necessary steps now. The future World order is at stake. China will continue until somebody stop them, but they will be smart enough to pull back on Hong Kong, if the suggested alliance will form and give them the ultimatums. The cost will then be too high for them.
State control that limit people’s freedom keeps societies locked, and the people will live in fear. This happens all over the World. But China could easily loosen up on the control and still keep a tight national state, releasing the great potential of innovation and happiness, and in addition become a valued member of the free world. But it takes either a civil uprising, or a courageous and visionary leader.
References
Download the report to get the full links
1 Xi Jinping speech, full text
2 History of Hong Kong, Wikipedia
3 Sino-British Joint Declaration
4 South China Morning Post
5 Chinese spokesperson (in Chinese)
6 Basic Law, full text
7 The Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, full text
8 Reuters
9 Treasury Sanctions Individuals Press Release
10 IPAC Alliance
11 Human Rights Watch letter, full text
12 BBC article
13 Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian's Regular Press Conference on May 29, 2020
14 Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian's Regular Press Conference on June 30, 2020
15 Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian's Regular Press Conference on July 1, 2020
16 Cross Regional statement on Hong Kong
17 Time Magazine article
18 Freedom Index, Wikipedia
19 Xi Jinping speech, full text
20 HRC Report
21 Wikipedia, Elections in China
