China to enact Article 23 National Security Law in Hong Kong

[urutzizu]

BBC: "China proposes controversial Hong Kong security law"

This is a significant development. To explain: Article 23 is a part of Hong Kongs basic law, that requires Hong Kong to pass a law that illegalizes treason, sedition, secession, spreading classified information and a host of other national security related offenses against the Chinese central government. All Attempts by the Hong Kong Government to introduce such a law through Hong Kongs own legal structure have failed, the last in 2003, when it was met with the largest protests until last year's Extradition protests, due to fears in Hong Kong that the Laws would be used against opponents of the Chinese Government.

Today, the Chinese government has announced it will bypass the Hong Kong legislative process, and pass the law through the National People's Congress beginning on Friday. The NPC is then expected to vote on the law at the end of the annual session, likely to be on May 28.

Until now, the Chinese Government held off from this step, and considered it a responsibility of the Hong Kong Government. However both the political situation in the City, and the geopolitical situation have changed things. This could cause even more turmoil in Hong Kong (how protests are affected by Covid-19 is an unknown), and it could significantly impact the imminent review of the US of Hong Kong's economic special status under HKHRDA. It is also yet another shift by the CCP towards a nationalist course as opposed to an economically-focused one.

[urutzizu]

I don't disagree in principle Santander, but It is already being re-eclipsed by Shanghai, isn't it? In what Dashushu was responding to specifically - the Allegation that HK integration into China means somehow supporting "higher rents", it is pretty obvious that the opposite is the case. I mean some of the protesters even live in Shenzhen for crying out loud. 1C2S - almost as unfettered neoliberalism as one can get - is responsible for the grotesque situation where a very small section of the City has almost complete monopolistic control over its Housing and ensures that usual mechanisms to increase supply cannot be utilized, because - unlike in the mainland - it has effective control over the levers of Government as well, and ensures Zoning laws remain extremely restrictive. And Pan-Democrats are perfectly fine with this arrangement, because they need to protect the narrative that the only reason for high rents are the evil mainlanders that come to live in HK. When in fact freer mobility between Mainland China and HK would force HK property owners to keep their prices in tack with those on the Mainland - the end to Border Controls would also make commuting into the City far easier. Integration would mean a very visible and clear improvement on one of the main underlying Issues that led to the protests in the first place.  

Also on the point that comparing these Laws to their equivalnents in Western Countries is invalid because they are far more overreaching - and you are not wrong, they are, actually to the point that I am also uncomfortable with them. But ultimately, that it had to come to this is single-handedly the responsibility of the Pan-Democrats. Once again these people, out of pure recalcitrance, refuse any compromise with the Mainland, allowing a bad situation to deteriorate out of some sort of accelerationist Idea that the longer things are bad in Hong Kong the more support they are going to get, and then are full surprised pikachu face when they end up shafting themselves - and Hong Kong - worse for it.

Same thing happened with the Chief Executive election, for instance. The Pan-Democrats had the option of the universal sufferage election with a nomination committee as accepted by the Central Government - that while still controlled by the pro-peking camp would have still effectively forced the nomination of a moderate pro-peking politican with popular appeal - or they could own the Chinese nats in the LegCo epic style and keep the current system where people have no say what so ever and that will always ensure the election of a pro-peking hardliner. They chose the latter obviously.

And same here. Everyone knew that Hong Kong needed some form of security law, like every other jurisdiction in the World. They could have worked with Beijing to implement the relatively moderate 2003 draft which had Hong kong input and was mostly in line with those of stricter democratic countries like France or South Korea. But no, they blocked everything. So the Central Government said ok, if implementing the offences into HK law is too much, then there must at least be a way to try those offenders in China. But everyone got angry, the City was burned, and we know the rest. And eventually Beijing ran out of patience and bypassed hong kong altogether and is now going to railroad it's preferred draft which is going to be far more authoritarian than the 2003 Draft, and most likely the de facto end to One Country Two Systems.

Hong Kong has been destroyed by the very people who claim to be fighting for her. Who, of course can and will always just emigrate - but that is a option that most in Hong Kong don't have. They have been sold down the river for some sweet USA university scholarships for Joshua Wong and his friends, and will be the ones facing the very real consequences of this.

[urutzizu]

The United States has certified that Hong Kong is no longer autonomous from Mainland China, which is a major step towards, as Congress and the President may now determine, ending Hong Kong's preferential economic treatment under the Hong Kong policy act and the application of trade restrictions and sanctions including higher trade tariffs, tougher investment rules, asset freezes and more restrictive visa rules. This will have a very real impact on the economic situation of the people of Hong Kong. I think you will see the end of Hong Kong as a financial centre on par with New York or London. But that is evidently a price that Beijing is willing to pay.

The NPC is set to Vote on the resolution within Hours. The general outcome of the Vote is entirely clear, of course, but there may well be dissent from the Hong Kong deputies, consisting of pro-Peking camp Hong Kong politicians, some of which have expressed opposition to it (Michael Tien Puk-sun for instance). Overall a majority of Hong Kong deputies are expected to vote in favour.  
The exact Wording of the Law will then be drafted by the NPCSC, but from the statements of various officials, it would appear the law is likely to ban anything from the flying of foreign flags and advocating Hong Kong independence, to the annual Virgil to commemorate the 1989 Protests. The latter is problematic in my eyes, because, unlike the others it cannot even be justified for nationalist reasons (in fact many Protesters in Hong Kong are against the Virgil, because the 1989 Movement was essentially nationalist in nature, and much of them are basically fine with the premise of having the Mainland Chinese, whom they view as foreign, rot in hell as long as HK gets independence.) It would also appear that in the interim the law would still be enforced by Hong Kong authorities, but Mainland forces will be allowed to intervene if they deem it necessary. This is currently, except in the strictest of circumstances, forbidden.

In short, not entirely a annexation as it has been variously described, the political and economic climate will still be somewhat more liberal relative to the Mainland, but likely more restrictive then Macau for instance which passed its own security law by itself, and where patriotic political opposition is still more or less possible within a stringent legal framework. Perhaps, in hindsight, that was the way to go from the start.

[urutzizu]

The Resolution has been passed. 2878 For, 1 Against, 6 Abstention. I guess Michael Tien was the only no.
US, UK, Australia and Canada have released a joint statement in Reaction: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-from-the-uk-australia-canada-and-united-states-on-hong-kong

They are not subtle in their Criticism and accuse China of Violating the 1984 Sino-British Joint declaration. It is not surprising that US and Australia would do this, but that especially the UK does so is a significant step, because UK-Chinese relations were until recently quite good. It is their strongest statement yet on the Issue. I wonder what the Reaction in Europe will be. Many in the EU, incl. Josep Borrell the EU de facto foreign minister, backed by Countries like Netherlands or Sweden want to react strongly, but much of the southern/eastern European states are more pro-china. I don't think the EU will come out as critically against the law.

jaichind, I agree with much of what you said. 1989 Movement was a very diverse group with many different aims, including those aligned with baizuo liberalism and disdain for confucian values (who perhaps viewed themselves as patriotic in the sense of wanting what they saw was best for China, but ultimately most Chinese would disagree with that). But a large part also, especially the ones who were against the corruption of the CCP and the lavish lifestyle/nepotism in their ranks, and especially those with sentiments which originated in the 1988 Nanjing protests against the preferencial treatment of African students, were very much nationalist in orientation. The nationalist parts of the democracy movement largely disappeared after 1989, and as you said many of them became aligned with Taiwan/Hong Kong independence or became loyal citizens of Western Countries, as there was little hope of democratisation in China. Other nationalists in the movement in the Mainland eventually became content with the nationalist course of the CCP. I think the SCMP did a interview a while back with some of the Children of some of the more nationalistic minded of the 1989 protesters, who now viewed the protests as futile and support the CCP as it shifted more nationalist and acted against corruption.

[urutzizu]

I know Trump won’t do this but Biden really needs to put some sort of refugee/visa plank for HKers in his platform

This is what Britain has announced: it will extend the Immigration rights of BN(O) passport holders (a residual form of British nationality granted to many HK'ers pre handover without, until now, the right to Immigrate to the UK; similar to Taiwan's NWOHR) including a path to full British Citizenship. There are some 2.9 Million people with BN(O) status in Hong Kong, who are eligible for the Passport, and this is not counting many immediate Family Members (esp. post 1997 born Children) with the right to join them.

While China is quite content with the Joshua Wong's and similar problematic types emigrating, they strongly opposed this, because such a wide expansion of Immigration rights will mean a massive brain drain to the UK, especially when combined with the abolition of HK's special economic status as confirmed by President Trump today. The Structure of how/when BN(O) status was awarded, means that it's holders are more likely than not to be middle aged with higher education and professional experience (due to pre-1997 connection), and upper/middle class with english fluency (due to the exclusion of newer mainland Immigrants). In short this will be a massive boost for the UK economy, especially the City of London. And interestingly this seems to be winning the support of both the most ardent Brexiteers and Remainers. The stage for the decline of Hong Kong is now completely set.