On Feb 17, 2023, a bill was introduced into the American Congress requiring the president to periodically certify whether to allow the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices (HKETOs) to continue operation in the United States. A negative certification would result in the HKETOs ceasing operation within 180 days. The current pretext is that the 2020 National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL) has undermined the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s human rights and “one country, two systems” principle.
With the US presidential election in November drawing near, Congress resumed after summer recess on Sept 9 with a “China Week” aimed at passing a raft of 28 pieces of anti-China legislation. As part of this China-bashing exercise, the HKETO Certification Act was passed by the House of Representatives on Tuesday. The bill will become law if the Senate also passes it and US President Joe Biden signs it.
Before my retirement in 2004, I was director-general of Hong Kong’s London ETO, covering the United Kingdom and a dozen other countries in Eastern Europe, Switzerland, Norway and Russia. In the mid-’80s, I was a commercial counselor in the Brussels ETO. A lot of the HKETOs’ work is devoted to helping foreign businesses and governments understand what is happening in Hong Kong in the context of its relationship with the Chinese mainland. These offices act as a helpful bridge between Hong Kong and the host countries. So it irks me that the good work of HKETOs has now become a sacrificial lamb on the altar of China-bashing.
To appreciate how the NSL came about, certain sociopolitical dynamics need to be understood.
In October 2021, with a 38-year career in Hong Kong, I was invited to pen Chapter 7, “One Country Two Systems Revisited — A Personal Real-Life Perspective”, for a book titled The Rise of China: Fresh Insights and Observations, published by the UK-based Paddy Ashdown Forum.
I outlined how, when Hong Kong first returned to the motherland in 1997, Beijing bent over backward to keep Hong Kong at arm’s length for fear of any interference by mainland officials. Even regular soccer matches between the police forces on either side of the border had to have prior approval from Beijing. As years went by, this “river water not to mix with well water” mentality proved no longer realistic as goods, trade, investments, people, funds and ideas rapidly moved both ways.
I explained how a whole generation of young Hong Kong people, brought up in a colonial education system biased toward job-related subjects, gradually lost their sense of nationhood. The inevitable socioeconomic integration across the border, including the dramatic change in streets of shops switching to gold and jewelry outlets catering for high-spending mainland tourists, brought about a sense of “erosion” of what was perceived to be Hong Kong’s own “identity”.
Later, ill-fated extradition legislation ignited waves of increasingly violent, petrol-bomb-throwing protesters holding Hong Kong’s law and order to ransom, demanding electoral changes contrary to specific provisions in the Basic Law, a constitutional document on Hong Kong’s governance. Egged on by foreign powers, some riotous protesters blatantly called for “Hong Kong independence”, openly challenging Beijing’s sovereignty over the city, necessitating the NSL’s subsequent enactment.
On Sept 11, the HKSAR government issued a robust rebuke in an official statement, condemning the US Congress for slandering the NSL and smearing Hong Kong’s human rights situation.
It pointed out that the Certification Act is a self-deception with double standards, considering that the US has the most stringent national security legislation on the planet. The Act disregards the constitutional obligation and inherent rights of the HKSAR to safeguard national security, smears the fact that human rights and the rule of law are properly protected in accordance with the law by the HKSAR government, and grossly interferes in Hong Kong’s affairs.
The statement highlights the legitimate functions of the three HKETOs in Washington, New York and San Francisco. They operate in accordance with local legislation and maintain close liaison with interlocutors in the government, business, think tanks and various sectors, enriching bilateral ties in different areas such as trade, investment, and arts and culture. Their smooth operation strengthens bilateral cooperation in various domains that is mutually beneficial to both places, including “win-win” benefits to some 1,200 American businesses in Hong Kong as well as a trade surplus of some $271.5 billion in the US’ favor.
The NSL clearly stipulates that human rights shall be respected and protected in safeguarding national security in the HKSAR. The rights and freedoms, which Hong Kong residents enjoy under the Basic Law and relevant provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, shall be protected in accordance with the law, including freedom of speech, press, publication, association, and assembly.
Law enforcement actions taken by the HKSAR authorities, including under the NSL, are based on concrete evidence and strictly in accordance with the law. They have nothing to do with the occupation, background or political stance of the persons concerned.
The Department of Justice (DoJ), by virtue of Article 63 of the Basic Law, controls criminal prosecutions free from any interference. Independent prosecutorial decisions for each case are made in a rigorous and objective manner, strictly based on evidence and applicable laws in accordance with the Prosecution Code. Prosecutions would be instituted by the DoJ only if there is sufficient admissible evidence to support a reasonable prospect of conviction, and if it is in the public interest to do so.
As demonstrated in recent NSL trials in Hong Kong, the city’s independent Judiciary, including eminent foreign judges in its Court of Final Appeal, has been vigilant in ensuring open and proper carriage of justice based on verified facts and established common law principles.
According to a survey conducted by a major foreign chamber of commerce earlier this year, almost 80 percent of its members interviewed expressed confidence in Hong Kong’s rule of law. Almost 70 percent said that their operations had not been affected by the NSL.
Meanwhile, another major foreign chamber of commerce’s survey released last month revealed that business confidence in Hong Kong almost matched the pre-COVID-19 pandemic level.
Business communities from different countries have recognized the city’s advantages and have been enthusiastic about doing business in the city, as is evident by their significant direct investments made in Hong Kong after the implementation of the NSL.
The HKETO Certification Act doesn’t help the US’ competitiveness. Passing the Act makes no sense. If anything, it would merely smack of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face
Invest Hong Kong, the government’s trade and investment organization, has completed 358 projects in the first seven months of this year, representing a 40 percent increase year-on-year. Among them, 32 completed projects were from the US, which was ranked in third place.
In addition, according to the Report on the Annual Survey of Companies in Hong Kong with Parent Companies Located outside Hong Kong, the number of companies stationed in Hong Kong exceeded 9,000 again in 2023. The US ranked third, with 1,273 companies.
All in all, the cornerstone of Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” principle remains intact.
Among my foreign business contacts, including American ones, there is a consensus that Hong Kong continues to be one of the safest places in the world to live and do business, calling into question the US’ recent “business advisory” on Hong Kong.
Many of Hong Kong’s foreign businesses, including American ones, rely on their contacts in their home countries for support and opportunities. HKETOs are well placed to help, including through promotion of trade and investment opportunities as well as by providing insights into Hong Kong’s developments in the context of its relations with the Chinese mainland. This very much serves foreign businesses’ best interests. Additionally, HKETOs often act as conduits for host countries, including the US, to channel informal ideas and suggestions serving to cement ties with Hong Kong.
As the three HKETOs are beneficial to the US’ best interests, the Certification Act passed in “China Week” appears part and parcel of the national sport of China-bashing in an election year. This happens with a bipartisan consensus that China has become the US’ “existential threat”. Negative remarks about China by both presidential candidates in their latest televised debate speak volumes.
China harbors no desire to supplant the US’ global leadership. What is more, the US is leading in many metrics, including the number of Nobel laureates, frontier scientific research, global military reach, extensiveness of allies, dominance of the dollar, and a deep reservoir of American global soft power. The mantra of China’s perceived “existential threat” is clearly overblown.
In the summer of 1990, I was invited ad personam on a monthlong tour of America as a US-sponsored “international visitor” to share my long-term views on Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland with top US business executives. At in-person meetings including one with Steve Forbes of Forbes Magazine and his editor-in-chief, I was consistent in explaining why Hong Kong would continue to play a strategic role for the Chinese mainland and the world as a whole, including the US. This role has become even more important under the “one country, two systems” principle after 1997.
However, the US’ Sinophobia, however unjustified, persists, driven by a black-or-white, win-or-lose Manichean mindset of competition, resulting in indiscriminate China-bashing, including the uncalled-for HKETO Certification Act.
There is no evidence that the NSL has undermined the “one country, two systems” principle. HKETOs are clearly beneficial to American interests. The HKETO Certification Act doesn’t help the US’ competitiveness. Passing the Act makes no sense. If anything, it would merely smack of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.
The author is an international independent China strategist, and was previously the director-general of social welfare and Hong Kong’s official chief representative for the UK, Eastern Europe, Russia, Norway and Switzerland.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
