Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi
THE Hong Kong region is a special administrative inalienable part of China, and Hong Kong affairs are China’s internal affairs that brook no interference by foreign forces,” Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Munir Akram, recently told the General Assembly’s Third Committee, representing the group of 55 states in the United Nations. Pakistan has reiterated the principle of non-interference in the internal matters of sovereign states at the United Nations and termed this principle a basic international norm that every country needs to respect. Ambassador Akram also listed the 55 countries which supported China’s “one country two systems,” policy. Nearly 70 countries voiced their support of China’s stance. Pakistan made a joint statement on behalf of 55 countries, opposing interference in China’s internal affairs under the pretext of Hong Kong. Cuba made a joint statement on behalf of 45 countries in support of China’s counter-terrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang. Kuwait also made a joint statement supporting China on behalf of three Arab nations.
China has been working for many years to cultivate a sympathetic voting bloc in the United Nations, particularly in regards to the sensitive issue of human rights. Beginning in the early 2010s, China began voting on UNHCR resolutions alongside a loose coalition of developing states usually referred to as the “Like-Minded Group of Developing Countries,” or simply the “Like-Minded Group” (LMG). The Like Minded Group (LMG) in the UN-led at various points by Russia, China and Egypt; but Beijing, in particular, has sought to align developing states with the PRC’s own diplomatic interests in the United Nations and other fora. Ahead of a March 13 U.N. panel discussion event on human rights violations in Xinjiang (hosted by the United States, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom), PRC diplomats directly approached delegates from developing states, and sent letters to other ambassadors. The letter decried the event as “based on groundless accusations,” which “aim[ed] at interfering in China’s domestic affairs and provoking confrontations.”
Making a veiled threat, the letter advised recipients “in the interest of our bilateral relations and continued multilateral cooperation… not to co-sponsor, participate in, or be present at this side event.” Several statements urging respect for the one country, two systems principle, adherence to human rights norms and local consultation were issued by the European Union, Japan, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia as a group, especially concerned with Sino-British Joint Declaration, both the governing Democratic Progressive Party and opposition Kuomintang in Taiwan, the United States and a group of over 356 parliamentarians from 32 countries led by Chris Patten.
The European Union (EU)’s sanctions on China over the Hong Kong affairs are a “symbolic gesture” to strike a balance between Washington and Beijing, as the measures will only have a limited impact on Hong Kong, observers noted. However, they warned that the EU should carefully watch its further steps, and avoid tilting to the US, especially as US elections are approaching, because any further provocation against China will only undermine the basis of China-EU relations, which are hailed as a model of pragmatic international relations and sabotage the bloc’s time-honoured diplomatic independence. The situation in Hong Kong has been a significant annoyance to the Communist Party for years. The persistent protests by millions of residents of the Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) against infringements on guaranteed freedoms represent a challenge to the central authorities and have been drawing unwelcome international attention on and off for years. The Chinese Communist leadership cannot allow itself to appear weak in the face of popular pressure. So it decided to act. The attempt to turn Hong Kong into just another Chinese city will cast some profound influence over Hong Kong‘s business activities with the EU.
Only an entity with sovereign power can decide what constitutes a country. In other words, the fundamental characteristics of sovereignty lie in the tautology of sovereign states claiming to be sovereign states, although this assertion of sovereignty can only be sustained in reality when there is real ability to control territory and recognition from other countries. Based on these conditions, the EU does not qualify as a country. The regional organization never declared itself as a sovereign state, and other countries never recognized the body as a sovereign state. In contrast, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), which includes Hong Kong, is a state. Even under two different systems, the PRC asserts itself as a single sovereign state and many countries recognize this proposition. But just because the EU is not a country and Hong Kong is part of the PRC, can we say that Brexit is a simple issue for people in the UK or other parts of Europe, or that it is wrong for the people of Hong Kong to struggle with their sense of belonging?
The western unwarranted apprehension/criticism that comes for Hong Kong after Beijing announced a bill on May 21 to “safeguard national security” in the city-state., as this law comes into effect, it will effectively end Hong Kong’s autonomy under the “one country, two systems” arrangement that has been in place since 1997- is not based on objective truth and reality. According to the provisions of the distribution of powers between mainland China and Hong Kong, China reserves the right to send in units of the People’s Liberation Army into Hong Kong. And yet, they haven’t done so, contrasting to what ‘Democratic and Secular’ India has done so far in Kashmir. Indian policymakers exploit the Hong Kong issue with Kashmir. The fact remains that there is no match between the two cases—China’s Hong Kong and that of India-occupied Kashmir. In reality, there is no match between the two since Kashmir is an internationally and the UN- recognized disputed territory between India and Pakistan since 1947, Kashmir has rightly been ranked as one of the world’s hotspots which could spark off a nuclear conflict between the two nuclear-armed states, India and Pakistan, if the resolution of this conflict is not sought in accordance with the UNSC resolutions.
—The writer, an independent ‘IR’ researcher-cum-international law analyst based in Pakistan, is member of European Consortium for Political Research Standing Group on IR, Critical Peace & Conflict Studies, also a member of Washington Foreign Law Society and European Society of International Law.
