Chinas National Security Law In Hong Kong

In 2019, China's National People's Congress (NPC) approved a National Security Law for Hong Kong, a development deeply intertwined with the "One Country, Two Systems" (OCTS) policy. Initially proposed for unifying China and Taiwan, the OCTS framework was later adopted during negotiations with Britain and Portugal concerning Hong Kong and Macau, respectively, both former colonies. Under this model, Hong Kong and Macau, while being part of China, retain distinct economic and political systems.

Hong Kong, returned to Chinese control in 1997, and Macau in 1999, became Special Administrative Regions (SARs) with their own currencies, economic structures, and legal systems, while defense and foreign affairs remain under China's purview. Hong Kong residents enjoy freedoms, including assembly, speech, and some democratic rights, not available in mainland China, protected by the Basic Law, a mini-constitution governing Hong Kong-China relations. The Basic Law's validity extends until 2047 for Hong Kong and 2049 for Macau, with the future beyond these dates uncertain. Amendments to the Basic Law necessitate a two-thirds majority in Hong Kong's legislature (LegCo).

China's National Security Law and the Erosion of Hong Kong's Autonomy

The year 2019 marked a turning point in the relationship between mainland China and Hong Kong with the passage of the National Security Law by the National People's Congress (NPC). This law, ostensibly designed to address threats to national security within the Special Administrative Region (SAR), has been widely criticized as an encroachment on the autonomy promised to Hong Kong under the "One Country, Two Systems" (OCTS) framework. To fully understand the implications of this development, it is crucial to delve into the historical context of the OCTS policy, the specific provisions of the National Security Law, the reactions of various stakeholders, and the potential long-term consequences for Hong Kong and the broader international order.

The Genesis of "One Country, Two Systems"

The "One Country, Two Systems" policy is a constitutional principle conceived by Deng Xiaoping in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Its initial purpose was to provide a framework for the reunification of China with Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. The core idea was to allow these regions, upon reunification, to maintain their existing economic and political systems for a specified period, even while being integral parts of the People's Republic of China. This was meant to alleviate concerns about the transition and to ensure a smooth integration process.

However, Taiwan rejected the proposal, unwilling to cede its sovereignty to the mainland. Despite this rejection, the OCTS framework found application in the negotiations with Britain and Portugal regarding the future of Hong Kong and Macau, respectively. These two colonies were scheduled to revert to Chinese sovereignty in the late 1990s, and the OCTS policy offered a way to manage this transition without fundamentally altering their existing systems.

The Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, which outlined the terms of Hong Kong's handover, explicitly enshrined the OCTS principle. It guaranteed Hong Kong a "high degree of autonomy," except in defense and foreign affairs, for a period of 50 years after the handover in 1997. This meant that Hong Kong would retain its own currency (the Hong Kong dollar), customs territory, legal system based on common law, and a separate political system, including a Legislative Council (LegCo) with limited democratic representation. The Basic Law, a mini-constitution promulgated in 1990, further elaborated on these guarantees, outlining the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong residents. A similar arrangement was put in place for Macau, which was handed over to China by Portugal in 1999.

The Structure of Autonomy: Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region

The designation of Hong Kong and Macau as Special Administrative Regions (SARs) is central to understanding the OCTS framework. As SARs, these regions possess a degree of autonomy far exceeding that of ordinary provinces or municipalities within mainland China. This autonomy is enshrined in their respective Basic Laws, which serve as their constitutional documents.

The Basic Law of Hong Kong guarantees a wide range of rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, assembly, the press, and religion. It also provides for an independent judiciary and a legal system based on the principles of common law, which is distinct from the socialist legal system of mainland China. Hong Kong residents also enjoy certain democratic rights, such as the right to vote in LegCo elections, although the electoral system is not fully democratic, with a significant portion of LegCo seats allocated to functional constituencies representing various professional and business sectors.

Economically, Hong Kong operates as a free market economy with its own currency, customs territory, and independent monetary policy. It maintains its position as a major international financial center, attracting foreign investment and facilitating trade between China and the rest of the world. This economic autonomy is crucial to Hong Kong's prosperity and its role as a gateway for foreign businesses seeking access to the Chinese market.

The central government in Beijing retains control over defense and foreign affairs. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) maintains a garrison in Hong Kong, although it is generally kept out of public view. In foreign policy, Hong Kong is represented by China, although it can participate in international organizations and forums in its own name in certain areas, such as trade and economics.

The National Security Law: A Shift in the Balance of Power

The passage of the National Security Law in 2019 marked a significant shift in the balance of power between Beijing and Hong Kong. The law was enacted by the National People's Congress (NPC), China's top legislature, without the direct participation or consent of the Hong Kong Legislative Council (LegCo). This move bypassed Hong Kong's own legislative processes and raised concerns about the erosion of its autonomy.

The National Security Law criminalizes four broad categories of activities: secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces. These offenses are defined in vague and broadly worded terms, which critics argue could be used to target a wide range of political activities and dissent. The law also establishes a new national security commission in Hong Kong, headed by a mainland official, with broad powers to oversee the implementation of the law.

One of the most controversial aspects of the National Security Law is its extraterritorial reach. The law applies not only to Hong Kong residents but also to anyone, regardless of nationality or location, who is deemed to have engaged in activities that threaten China's national security. This has raised concerns about the potential for the law to be used to target critics of the Chinese government living abroad.

The enactment of the National Security Law has had a chilling effect on Hong Kong's political landscape. Many pro-democracy activists and politicians have been arrested or forced into exile. Civil society organizations have disbanded, and independent media outlets have been shut down. The law has also led to increased self-censorship in the media and academia.

Key Actors and Their Positions

The events surrounding the National Security Law have involved a complex interplay of various actors, each with their own interests and perspectives.

• China: The Chinese government, under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), views the National Security Law as necessary to maintain stability and security in Hong Kong. Beijing argues that the law is aimed at a small number of "separatists" and "foreign agents" who are seeking to undermine China's sovereignty and destabilize Hong Kong. The CCP's underlying interest is to assert greater control over Hong Kong and ensure that it does not become a base for anti-China activities.

• Hong Kong Residents (Pro-Democracy): Many Hong Kong residents, particularly those who support democracy and greater autonomy, view the National Security Law as a violation of the "One Country, Two Systems" framework and a threat to their freedoms. They believe that the law is being used to suppress dissent and silence critics of the government. Their underlying interest is to preserve their existing freedoms and democratic rights, as guaranteed by the Basic Law.

• United Kingdom: As the former colonial ruler of Hong Kong, the United Kingdom has a historical and moral obligation to uphold the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which guaranteed Hong Kong's autonomy. The UK government has expressed serious concerns about the impact of the National Security Law on Hong Kong's freedoms and has accused China of violating the Joint Declaration. The UK has offered a pathway to citizenship for Hong Kong residents who are eligible for British National (Overseas) passports.

• United States: The United States has been a vocal critic of the National Security Law and has imposed sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials deemed responsible for undermining Hong Kong's autonomy. The US government views the law as a threat to democracy and human rights and has called on China to respect its international obligations.

  Advertisement

• European Union: The European Union has also expressed concerns about the National Security Law and has called on China to uphold Hong Kong's autonomy. The EU has imposed some limited sanctions on Chinese officials and has tightened its export controls on goods that could be used for repression in Hong Kong.

The Legal Frameworks at Play

The legal frameworks governing the situation in Hong Kong are complex and often contested. The two most important legal documents are the Basic Law of Hong Kong and the National Security Law.

• Basic Law of Hong Kong: The Basic Law is Hong Kong's mini-constitution, which was drafted in the late 1980s and early 1990s and came into effect in 1997. It guarantees a high degree of autonomy to Hong Kong, except in defense and foreign affairs, for a period of 50 years. The Basic Law also enshrines a wide range of rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, assembly, the press, and religion. Amendments to the Basic Law require a two-thirds majority in Hong Kong's Legislative Council (LegCo) and the consent of the National People's Congress (NPC).

• National Security Law: The National Security Law was enacted by the NPC in 2020 and applies to Hong Kong. It criminalizes four broad categories of activities: secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces. The law is vaguely worded and has been criticized for its potential to be used to target a wide range of political activities and dissent. The National Security Law takes precedence over Hong Kong's existing laws, including the Basic Law, in cases of conflict.

The legal interpretation of these frameworks is a key point of contention. Pro-democracy activists and legal scholars argue that the National Security Law violates the Basic Law and undermines Hong Kong's autonomy. They point to the fact that the law was enacted without the direct participation or consent of the Hong Kong Legislative Council (LegCo), bypassing Hong Kong's own legislative processes. They also argue that the law's vague wording and extraterritorial reach are inconsistent with the principles of the Basic Law.

The Chinese government, on the other hand, argues that the National Security Law is consistent with the Basic Law and is necessary to protect China's national security. Beijing maintains that the law is aimed at a small number of "separatists" and "foreign agents" who are seeking to undermine China's sovereignty and destabilize Hong Kong. The Chinese government also argues that it has the right to interpret the Basic Law and that its interpretation should be given deference.

Historical Precedents and Their Relevance

The handover of Hong Kong and Macau to China in the late 1990s provides a crucial historical precedent for understanding the current situation. The establishment of the "One Country, Two Systems" framework was a unique and unprecedented experiment in managing the transition of these former colonies to Chinese sovereignty.

The success of the OCTS framework in the early years after the handover was largely due to the fact that the Chinese government allowed Hong Kong and Macau to maintain a high degree of autonomy and respected their existing systems. However, in recent years, there has been a growing perception that Beijing is increasingly interfering in Hong Kong's affairs and eroding its autonomy.

The passage of the National Security Law is seen by many as a culmination of this trend and a fundamental departure from the principles of the OCTS framework. The law has effectively curtailed Hong Kong's freedoms and has brought the region more closely under the control of the Chinese government.

Another relevant historical precedent is the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. The brutal suppression of these protests by the Chinese government had a profound impact on Hong Kong, raising concerns about the future of the region after the handover. The Tiananmen Square incident served as a stark reminder of the potential for the Chinese government to use force to maintain control and suppress dissent.

The Future Outlook for Hong Kong

The future of Hong Kong's autonomy and freedoms remains uncertain. The implementation of the National Security Law has already led to significant restrictions on civil liberties and political participation. The law has also created a climate of fear and self-censorship in the media and academia.

The long-term impact of the National Security Law on Hong Kong's economy is also uncertain. The region's status as a major international financial center depends on its rule of law, independent judiciary, and free flow of information. The National Security Law has raised serious questions about the future of these institutions and could lead to a decline in foreign investment and business confidence.

The Basic Law guarantees Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy until 2047. However, the Chinese government has made it clear that it intends to maintain its control over Hong Kong and that it will not tolerate any challenges to its sovereignty. The future beyond 2047 is even more uncertain, as the Basic Law does not specify what will happen after that date.

One possible scenario is that the "One Country, Two Systems" framework will be extended beyond 2047, with some modifications. Another possibility is that Hong Kong will be more fully integrated into mainland China, with its autonomy significantly reduced or eliminated. The outcome will depend on a number of factors, including the political and economic situation in China, the level of international pressure on Beijing, and the resilience of Hong Kong's civil society.

The Broader Implications for Indian Foreign Relations

The events in Hong Kong have broader implications for Indian foreign relations, particularly in the context of India's relationship with China and its own democratic values.

• Sino-Indian Relations: The situation in Hong Kong adds another layer of complexity to the already strained relationship between India and China. India has expressed concerns about the erosion of Hong Kong's autonomy and has called on China to respect its international obligations. However, India has also been careful not to directly criticize China's actions, as it seeks to maintain a working relationship with Beijing on a range of issues, including trade, climate change, and regional security.

• Taiwan: The events in Hong Kong have also raised concerns in Taiwan, which views itself as a self-governing democracy and rejects China's claim of sovereignty. The erosion of Hong Kong's autonomy has reinforced Taiwan's determination to resist any attempts by China to impose the "One Country, Two Systems" framework on the island. India has maintained a cautious approach to Taiwan, avoiding any actions that could be interpreted as a recognition of Taiwan's independence. However, India has also strengthened its economic and cultural ties with Taiwan in recent years.

• Democracy and Human Rights: The situation in Hong Kong underscores the importance of upholding democratic values and human rights around the world. India, as the world's largest democracy, has a strong interest in promoting these values and in supporting countries that are struggling to maintain their freedoms. However, India also faces its own challenges in terms of human rights and democratic governance, and it must ensure that its own actions are consistent with its stated values.

• International Order: The events in Hong Kong raise fundamental questions about the future of the international order and the role of international law. China's actions in Hong Kong have been widely criticized as a violation of its international obligations and a challenge to the rules-based international system. India, as a rising power, has a stake in upholding the international order and in ensuring that it is based on the principles of respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the rule of law.

  Advertisement

• Economic Implications: Hong Kong has traditionally been a key economic hub and a gateway for foreign investment into China. The uncertainty surrounding Hong Kong's future and the potential impact of the National Security Law on its business environment could lead to a shift in investment flows. India could potentially benefit from this shift if it can create a more attractive investment climate for foreign businesses.

The situation in Hong Kong is a complex and evolving issue with far-reaching implications. It is a test of the "One Country, Two Systems" framework, a challenge to international law, and a reminder of the importance of upholding democratic values and human rights. For India, the events in Hong Kong present both challenges and opportunities. India must navigate this complex landscape carefully, balancing its strategic interests with its commitment to democratic principles.