April 18, 2002

MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS

FROM: CHRISTOPHER MALETZ, Assistant Director

SUBJECT: Hong Kong

If there was any doubt left that China’s promise to maintain the “one country, two systems” framework for governing Hong Kong was made with its fingers crossed, this week’s news should put that doubt to rest.

On Sunday, Harry Wu, an American critic of China’s human rights practices and who served 19 years in a Chinese prison camp for being a political dissident, was denied entry into Hong Kong. Immigration officials claimed that they take “into consideration a range of factors, including the overall interest of Hong Kong.” In denying Wu entry, Hong Kong violated existing agreements with the United States on the right of American citizens to visit there. Equally important, it has revealed just how much Beijing is now calling the shots in the former British colony.

Then, yesterday, Beijing’s handpicked chief executive for Hong Kong, Tung Chee-hwa, unveiled plans to appoint his own ministers to head Hong Kong’s administrative organs when his second term begins on July 1. In an obvious attempt by the Chinese to gain more control over Hong Kong, the new system will replace Hong Kong’s long-standing practice of having the agencies overseen by non-partisan civil servants. Established during British rule, the practice of using senior civil servants to run the day-to-day affairs of the territory was a key reason why Hong Kong developed a world-wide reputation for being a city governed by “the rule of law” and remarkably free of corruption and political favoritism. Under Tung’s proposal, the new ministers will be accountable neither to the legislative council nor the public -- only Mr. Tung.

Finally, this week, Hong Kong continues to round up and deport 4,300 mainland-born children of Hong Kong residents back to China. In doing so, Tung’s administration is ignoring Article 24 of the Hong Kong constitution that guarantees them the “right of abode” in Hong Kong. This action follows Tung’s and Beijing’s heavy-handed -- and ultimately successful -- effort to overturn a 1999 ruling by Hong Kong’s highest court supporting that right.

In August 2001, the U.S. State Department released to the Congress its report on Hong Kong. Its conclusion was that “Hong Kong’s promised high degree of autonomy…[has] proved to be a reality.” For close observers of Hong Kong’s declining liberties, the department’s report was a bit of “whistling past the graveyard.” Given recent events, it’s now just wrong.