News: China Bristles at Criticism of Hong Kong Restrictions

April 28, 2004
By KEITH BRADSHER
New York Times

A brilliant article on the democracy in Hong Kong during the British rule, American lack of Interests at the time, and China asking why the fuss now. A nice reminder all three countries are ruled by hypocrites.

HONG KONG, April 27 – China’s foreign minister responded angrily on Tuesday to American and British criticisms of its latest restrictions on democracy here, accusing both countries of holding China to a double standard after ignoring the lack of democracy in Hong Kong during more than a century of British rule.

The strong reaction was the latest sign of a growing assertiveness in China’s foreign policy, as Beijing has sought to position itself as rising a diplomatic power in Asia with influence to match its increasing economic might. Historians and politicians here noted that there was some truth to Beijing’s complaint of a double standard, with Britain and the United States showing little interest in democracy here except in the 1940’s, when Hong Kong was under Japanese occupation, and again in the 1990’s, with the British colony’s transfer to Chinese rule.

“Do you think Hong Kong was democratic under British rule?” Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing asked reporters in Shanghai on Tuesday. “Did the British raise concerns about that? Did the Americans raise concerns? No. Why don’t you take a look at this double standard?”

Mr. Li joined other Chinese officials in also saying that the running of Hong Kong was an internal concern of China. “Are you clear on that?” he asked. “Hong Kong is China’s Hong Kong.”

At a news conference in Beijing Tuesday, Kong Quan, the spokesman for China’s foreign ministry, denounced what he described as foreign interference in China’s internal affairs. He pointed out that while London used to appoint Hong Kong’s governors, China had allowed a committee of prominent local residents to choose the territory’s chief executive, subject to Beijing’s approval.

The committee, which currently has 800 members, is dominated by business executives with large investments on the mainland, and they tend to follow Beijing’s wishes. Tung Chee-hwa, the Beijing-backed chief executive ever since Britain transferred Hong Kong to Chinese rule in 1997, ran unopposed in 2002 for a second five-year term.

Spokeswomen at the American and British consulates here declined to comment on Tuesday on the criticisms from the Chinese foreign ministry.

On Monday, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, China’s Communist Party-controlled parliament, barred Hong Kong from holding popular elections for the chief executive in 2007 or for more than half of the seats in the legislature in 2008.

In response, Bill Rammell, the British foreign office minister, called in the Chinese ambassador to London to protest the erosion of the “high degree of autonomy” Beijing had pledged to allow in Hong Kong before it reverted to Chinese rule in 1997. In Washington, State Department and White House spokesmen also criticized the decision, as did the American consul general here, Jim Keith.

“The United States believes that the Hong Kong people’s aspirations should be given priority in determining the pace and the scope of democratization in Hong Kong,” said Richard Boucher, the State Department spokesman.

Martin Lee, the founding chairman of Hong Kong’s Democratic Party, said on Tuesday that the British had introduced very little democracy until the final years of their rule. Direct elections for the Legislative Council only began in 1991, with 18 of the 60 seats chosen by the public.

That proportion has gradually increased and will reach 30 directly elected seats in elections to be held in September. On Monday, the National People’s Congress capped this ratio at half the seats, while the rest will continue to be elected by representatives of so-called functional constituencies, like insurance and local chambers of commerce, that tend to be dominated by pro-Beijing executives.

Mr. Lee said that he was nonetheless disappointed that Beijing had resorted to such a blunt declaration on Monday that it would not permit greater democracy here. Beijing could have simply asked Mr. Tung, the chief executive, not to introduce any bills containing electoral reforms to the legislature.

“They are really telling the world they don’t care what they think, they want to rule from Beijing,” Mr. Lee said.

Philip Snow, a leading historian of Hong Kong, said that the United States had shown little interest in Hong Kong until World War II, when it put pressure on the British to return most of the territory to China’s Nationalist government.

Only two members of the 13-member Urban Council were elected before the war, and only people who were completely fluent in English were allowed to vote, which excluded most of the local population. The council had little power in any case, with the governor making all important decisions in consultation with London.

Under American pressure, Britain did begin making plans in mid-1943 to allow more popular rule here. By then, however, Japanese troops had already taken Hong Kong, controlling the territory from 1941 until 1945.

Sir Mark Young, the British governor who came to Hong Kong soon after the Japanese surrender, put forward a detailed plan for a municipal council with two-thirds of its members elected by the general public. But interest in the plan faded after his retirement in 1947, while American officials stopped voicing support for democracy here after 1949, in response to the Communist takeover in mainland China.

The plan was finally scuttled in the early 1950’s, to a considerable extent because of the opposition of British and Chinese tycoons alike, who feared that greater democracy would lead to higher social spending and taxes.

Local business leaders have raised the same objections in recent months to popular elections, siding with Beijing against the large majority of Hong Kong’s people, who polls show, favor direct elections. As in the 1940’s, prominent executives have warned that elections could lead to the establishment of a welfare state.

“The elite of the society, then as I suppose now, were dead against democratization,” Mr. Snow said.