22 May 2020
Cogito Ergo Non Serviam
The People's Republic of China has decided to violate yet again the international treaty by which it annexed Hong Kong. Under that agreement and Hong Kong's basic law, the Legislative Council of the special administrative region has to pass laws related to security and stability. However, the Chinese parliament (which is a rubber stamp assembly for the Chinese Communist Party) is bringing forward legislation to usurp that power and establish a more authoritarian system in Hong Kong. More protests are certain to follow, and the PRC will likely use force to quell the disturbances. Both sides are running out of runway.
The Guardian explains, "Article 23 of Hong Kon'g Basic Law, its mini constitution, says the territory must enact, 'on its own', national security laws to prohibit 'treason, secession, sedition [and] subversion' against the Chinese government.
The Chinese are convinced that the last year of political unrest in Hong Kong is the work of foreign agents provacteurs. This is utter nonsense but is standard operating proceedure for Marxists who believe their revolution is so pure and perfect that dissent must come from outside agitators. The same reasoning was used in the Jim Crow South to justify the use of firehoses and dogs against children marching for their own freedom.
The PRC's proposed law is general and broad enough to use against anyone who dares question the rule of President Xi and his henchmen. It would forbid activities the authories deem secessionist or subversive, and it would ban foreign interference and terrorism. Precisely what is secessionist or subversive is a matter for the security forces to decide. Live broadcasting by members the internaitonal media would easily be considered foreign interference, and terrorism is a nice catch-all term that is amorphous enough to jail anyone for 20 years.
Moveover, the proposed law will allow the Ministry of State Security and its supporting organs to establish offices in Hong Kong. Naturally, it has been running agents and informers there since before the British left. However, it is one thing to run operatives in a hostile area and quite another to be the established occupation authority.
The treaty establishes "One Country, Two Systems" for Hong Kong and China for fifty years. The halfway mark is approaching, and it is clear that China has no intention of keeping the agreement until it has to do so. The people of Hong Kong need the support of the British and others to make China keep its word. If China proves unwilling to keep to this deal, why should anyone expect it to follow the rules on trade? And if that is the case, why should anyone give it a trade deal? The world is not without leverage, but it needs to be used.
© Copyright 2020 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.