Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. Afficher tous les articles

lundi 16 décembre 2019

Free Hong Kong - Free Vietnam Solidarity

Vietnamese immigrants rally behind Hong Kong protesters, pushing for democracy in Asia
By JULIA BARAJAS, ALLISON HONG

Anh Cao shows his support for Hong Kong protesters at a rally at the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles. 

On a balmy Saturday afternoon in November, dozens of people gathered in front of the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles to show their support for the protesters in Hong Kong.
Carrying signs with slogans like “Stay Strong” and “Don’t Go Back,” they marched from Shatto Place up to Wilshire Boulevard and back to the consulate. 
Some wore masks, like their counterparts in Hong Kong, shouting “no brutality, no tear gas!”
They distributed copies of the lyrics to the “Les Misérables” hit “Do You Hear the People Sing?” Then, turning to face the consulate’s security camera, they chanted the lyrics of the rebel anthem — just as protesters did during their peaceful takeover of the Hong Kong International Airport this past summer:
Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again
But the majority of those who rallied in front of the consulate that day were not Chinese Americans. 
They were Southern Californians of Vietnamese descent.
Among the Vietnamese diaspora, support for the protesters in Hong Kong has been ongoing and pronounced. 
Vietnamese around the world have followed the protests via Facebook, with some vacationing in Hong Kong videotaping demonstrators and sharing the footage, often live, on the social media platform to promote the pro-democracy movement. 
This support is rooted, in part, in the fact that many people who fled South Vietnam during the communist takeover later settled in Hong Kong, which was then still under British rule.
Alex Trinh, a hairstylist who drove from his home in Garden Grove to take part in the demonstration at the Chinese Consulate, stressed that the rally spoke to broader concerns regarding the future of democracy in Asia.

Protesters rally at the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles in support of Hong Kong demonstrators.

At the rally in Los Angeles, demonstrators said they were compelled to participate after seeing images of Hong Kong officials mistreating students who had barricaded themselves on university campuses throughout the city. 
They also recalled a video showing riot police officers kicking a man wearing a yellow shirt.“But we’re not just here for Hong Kong,” said Trinh, who made a black banner that read “Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong” and distributed matching shirts at the rally.
“If Hong Kong falls,” he said, “there could be a domino effect in the region.”
When discussing the potential expansion of Beijing’s reach, Trinh and other marchers pointed to Taiwan, whose status they perceive as precarious. 
The island has been self-ruled since the 1940s, when Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek retreated there along with millions of his supporters after losing the war against Communist forces. 
The Chinese government, however, maintains that Taiwan and China are a single country, and Chinese dictator Xi Jinping has not ruled out force in his quest for unification. 
The protests in Hong Kong, which also concern questions of autonomy, have sparked concerns about the future of Taiwan, where presidential elections will take place in January.
The Vietnamese diaspora’s fear of China’s “encroaching reach across East Asia” is “valid and justified,” said Lev Nachman, a doctoral candidate at UC Irvine researching the relationship between social movements and political parties, with an emphasis on Taiwan and Hong Kong.
However, he added, Taiwan is “well prepared to fight back against a potential domino effect. Unlike Vietnam, Taiwan is a democracy, and unlike Hong Kong, Taiwan is de facto independent from the [People’s Republic of China].”
Plus, Nachman said, even though China “constantly tries to exploit Taiwan’s democracy against itself through disinformation campaigns or by funding pro-China politicians, the Taiwanese people have shown over time that they do not want to be incorporated,” instead preferring “some version of the status quo” or a “push for more sovereignty.”
Pointing to the 1997 “one country, two systems” framework, which enables Hong Kong to retain its own economic and administrative systems and affords residents more rights than their counterparts in mainland China, Nachman added that “Taiwan will not simply fall next.”
“Every politician in Taiwan — even the pro-China politicians — have gone on the record to say they reject ‘one country, two systems’ and do not want Taiwan to fall into such a regime,” he said.
The protests in Hong Kong, in fact, were spurred by an extradition bill, issued in response to a Taiwan murder case involving two Hong Kong residents. 
Had it been implemented, the measure would have allowed "criminal" suspects to be sent for trial in Communist Party-controlled courts in mainland China.

Protesters rally at the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles in support of Hong Kong demonstrators.

As for the outpouring of support for Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement among the Vietnamese community in Southern California, UC Irvine history professor Jeffrey Wasserstrom said that “there are long connections between the two regions,” including the settlement of refugees.
Daniel Tsang, distinguished librarian emeritus at UC Irvine, who studied in Hanoi and Hong Kong, also underscored a long history of cross-migration. 
Some residents of Orange County’s Little Saigon, he said, are actually descendants of “ethnic Chinese” who fled to Vietnam before settling in the United States. 
In fact, Tsang added, many of the refugees who fled after the fall of Saigon and settled at Camp Pendleton in 1975 were ethnic Chinese.
In addition to the rally in Los Angeles, there have been other examples of support for the Hong Kong protesters in the Vietnamese community. 
Earlier this year, Vietnamese American musician and television producer Truc Ho released the song “Sea of Black” in reference to protests opposing the extradition bill.
In an accompanying music video, residents of France, Australia, England and the United States show their support in English and Vietnamese.
One of them waves the flag of South Vietnam, as did the marchers at the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles.
“For many Vietnamese,” said Hoi Trinh, an Australian human rights attorney of Vietnamese descent, the yellow banner with three red stripes “is a symbol of democracy and freedom.
Trinh, who has been given the key to the city of Garden Grove for his work, lamented not being able to join the rally at the Chinese Consulate.
At the time, he was in Washington, lobbying on behalf of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act
The legislation, which was signed into law by President Trump in November, requires an annual review to determine whether Hong Kong is sufficiently autonomous to retain its special trade status with the United States. 
It was signed alongside another bill that prohibits the export of riot control weapons like tear gas and rubber bullets to the region. 
China, which has been at loggerheads with the United States over trade, reacted by having its ambassador protest the legislation.
Like most of the marchers at the consulate, Trinh, the attorney, has no direct ties to Hong Kong. 
He visited the city for the first time when he was in law school in the early 1990s to help Vietnamese refugees resettle in the area.
This, he said, is why he identifies with the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong. 
He founded the anti-establishment Vietnamese Overseas Initiative for Conscience Empowerment (VOICE), a nongovernmental organization that helps stateless Vietnamese refugees gain asylum and provides internship programs to train social activists in Vietnam.
“It’s not just in the States,” Trinh added. 
“It’s worldwide.”

vendredi 13 décembre 2019

Revolution of Our Times

Hong Kong young demonstrators shift back and forth between their old lives and their new ones– school uniforms and dinners with mom and dad, then pulling the masks over their faces once more. 
By TOM LASSETER

Fiona’s rebellion against the People’s Republic of China began slowly in the summer months, spreading across her 16-year-old life like a fever dream. 
The marches and protests, the standoffs with police, the lies to her parents. 
They’d all built on top of her old existence until she found herself, now, dressed in black, her face wrapped with a homemade balaclava that left only her eyes and a pale strip of skin visible. 
Her small hands were stained red.
It was just paint, she said, as she funneled liquid into balloons. 
The air around her stank of lighter fluid. 
Teenagers hurled Molotov cocktails toward police. 
Lines of archers roamed the grounds of the university they’d seized; sometimes, they stopped to release metal-tipped arrows into the darkness, let fly with the hopes of finding the flesh of a cop.
Down below Fiona, rows of police flanked an intersection. 
Within a stone’s throw, Chinese soldiers stood in riot gear behind the gates of an outpost of the People’s Liberation Army, one of the most powerful militaries on the planet.
Fiona joined her first march on June 9, a schoolgirl making her way to the city’s financial district on a sunny day as people called out for freedom. 
It was now November 16, and she was one of more than 1,000 protesters swarming around and barricaded inside Hong Kong Polytechnic University. 
Because of their young age and the danger of arrest, Reuters is withholding the full names of Fiona and her comrades.
Night was falling. 
They were wild and free with their violence, but on the verge of being surrounded and pinned down.
The kids, which is what most of them were, buzzed back and forth like hornets, cleaning glass bottles at one station, filling them with lighter fluid and oil in another. 
An empty swimming pool was commandeered to practice flinging the Molotov cocktails, leaving burn marks skidded everywhere.
When front-line decisions needed to be made, clumps of protesters came together to form a jittering black nest – almost everyone was dressed from hood to mask to pants in black – yelling about whether to charge or pull back.

A protester stands in front of smashed windows and graffiti saying “Liberty or Death” during the standoff at Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

They were becoming something different from what they were, a metamorphosis that would have been difficult to imagine in orderly Hong Kong, a city where you line up neatly for an elevator door and crowds don’t step into an empty street until the signal changes. 
With each slap up against the police, each scramble down the subway stairs to avoid arrest as tear gas ate at their eyes, they hardened. 
They shifted back and forth between their old lives and their new – school uniforms and dinners with mom and dad, then pulling the masks over their faces once more. 
It was a dangerous balance.
“We may all be killed by the police. Yes,” said Fiona.
At the crucible of Polytechnic University, Fiona and the others crossed a line. 
Their movement has embraced the slogan of “be water,” of pushing forward with dramatic action and then pulling back suddenly, but here, the protesters hunkered down, holding a large chunk of territory in the middle of Hong Kong. 
In doing so, Fiona found moments bigger than what her life was before. 
“We call the experience of protest, like at PolyU, a dream,” she later explained.
But to speak of such things out loud, without the mask that she hid behind, without the throbbing crowds that made it seem within reach, is not possible outside, in the real Hong Kong.
The protesters have left traces of their hopes, confessions and fears across the city, in graffiti scrawled on bank buildings and bus stops alike. 
One line that’s appeared: “There may be no winners in this revolution but please stay to bear witness.”
The impact of Hong Kong’s protests, as they pass the half-year mark, is this: Kids with rocks and bottles have fought their way to the sharp edge between two nation states expected to shape the 21st century.
The street unrest resembles an ongoing brawl between police and the young men and women in black. 
Police have fired about 16,000 rounds of tear gas and 10,000 rubber bullets. 
Since June, they’ve rounded up people from the ages of 11 to 84, making more than 6,000 arrests. 
About 500 officers have been wounded in the melee.
After the U.S. Congress was galvanized by the plight of the protesters, it passed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which President Donald Trump signed last month. 
The law subjects Hong Kong to review by the U.S. State Department, at least once a year, on whether the city has clung to enough autonomy from Beijing to continue receiving favorable trading terms from America. 
It also provides for sanctions, including visa bans and asset freezes, against officials responsible for human rights violations in Hong Kong.
The protesters were delighted, carrying American flags and singing “The Star-Spangled Banner” in the streets of Hong Kong. 
Beijing was enraged. 
China has had sovereignty over Hong Kong since the British handed it over in 1997. 
The Chinese government quickly banned U.S. military ships from docking in Hong Kong, a traditional port of call in the region.
The protesters, including many as young as Fiona, had changed the course of aircraft carriers and guided-missile destroyers.
Reporter Tom Lasseter exchanges Telegram messages with Lee. 

The stakes for the kids of Hong Kong go well beyond a moment of geopolitical standoff. 
When Britain passed the city to China, like a pearl slipping from the hand of one merchant to another, there was a written understanding that for 50 years Hong Kong would enjoy a great deal of autonomy. Known as “one country, two systems,” the agreement suspended some of the blow of a global finance center coming under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party. 
The deal expires in 2047. 
For Fiona, this means that in her lifetime she will live not in the freewheeling city to which she was born, but, quite possibly, in a place that’s just another dot on the map of China.
Chants at marches revolve around five protester demands, such as universal suffrage, with “Not one less!” the automatic refrain. 
But conversations soon turn to a larger, more difficult topic at the root of their complaints. 
China.
During interviews with more than a dozen protesters at Polytechnic and another university besieged at the same time, and continued contact with many of them in the weeks that followed, the subject sprang up repeatedly. 
It’s never far, they said, the shadow of Beijing over the Hong Kong government’s policies.
“They’re all involved with this shit,” said Lee, who gave only her last name. 
The 20-year-old nursing student covered her mouth after the obscenity, embarrassed to have said it out loud in the middle of a cafe, and quickly continued. 
“Of course China is the big boss behind this.”
“If China is going to take over Hong Kong, we will lose our freedoms, we will lose our rights as humans,” she said. 
Police had taken down her information when she surrendered outside Polytechnic University. 
She didn’t yet know whether that would lead to an arrest on rioting charges, which could bring up to 10 years of prison.
“In my view, violence is the thing that protects us,” Lee said. 
“It is a warning to those, like the police, who think they can do anything to us.”
The acceptance of violence isn’t limited to the barricades. 
Joshua Wong, the global face of the movement’s lobbying efforts, said he understood the need for protesters “to defend themselves with force.”
As Wong spoke during an interview in Hong Kong on Wednesday, the headline on the front page of the South China Morning Post on the table next to his elbow read: “BOMB PLOTTERS ‘INTENDED TO TARGET POLICE AT MASS RALLY’”
If a group of protesters had indeed planned to bomb police, would that have been a step too far?
“I think the fundamental issue,” he said, “is we never can prove which strategy is the most effective or not-effective way to put pressure on Beijing.”

When Fiona first heard about a bill that would allow criminal suspects to be shipped from Hong Kong to mainland China, the initial trigger of the protests, she wasn’t concerned. 
It was the sort of thing that troublemakers worried about. 
“The extradition bill seemed good to me,” she said.
Her mother, a housewife from mainland China, is the product of a Communist education system that, as Fiona puts it, doesn’t “allow them to think about politics.” 
She is still unaware, for example, that there was a massacre around Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in 1989.
Fiona’s father, from Hong Kong, drives a minibus taxi. 
He has concerns about creeping mainland control, but his urge to “treasure our freedom” leaves him afraid of anything that might provoke Beijing’s wrath: “He keeps saying we should not do this and we should not do that.”
They live together in a sliver of a working-class district in Kowloon, the peninsula that juts above Hong Kong island. 
It is a place of tiny apartments and people just trying to get by.
It was much better, everyone in her household agreed, to avoid politics.
On weekends, Fiona, who has a cartoon sticker of Cinderella on the back of her iPhone, usually went shopping with girlfriends from high school. 
They looked for new outfits. 
They chatted and had tea together.
But when Fiona saw the news that more than 3,000 Hong Kong lawyers dressed in black had marched against the proposed extradition bill on June 6, she wondered what was going on.
She clicked through YouTube on her cell phone. 
She stopped on a Cantonese-language video uploaded about a week before by a young, handsome guy – hair cropped close on the sides and in a sort of thick flop on top – sitting on the edge of a bed. The video was speeded up so the presenter spoke in a fast blur, delivering on what he billed as, “Extradition bill 6 minute summary for dummies.”
The idea of the bill, on its face, wasn’t a problem, the young man said – public safety and rules are important. 
The issue was that the judiciary in the mainland and the judiciary in Hong Kong are two totally different things.
The Chinese Communist Party, he said, might use this new linkage between the court systems to come after ordinary people who were exercising their freedom of speech, something protected in Hong Kong but not Beijing: “You may be extradited to China because of telling a joke.”

Fiona was alarmed.
People walk inside the Legislative Council building after protesters stormed the building on the anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover to China on July 1. 

Just a few days after her YouTube awakening, on June 9, she took the subway with a group of friends from high school over to Hong Kong island. 
The crowd filled the march’s meeting point, Victoria Park, and soon flooded outside its boundaries. Between the glimmering towers of commerce, they yelled: “Fight for freedom! Stand with Hong Kong!” 
They yelled: “No China extradition! No evil law!” 
Fiona was astonished. 
She couldn’t believe so many people had shown up.
The swell of the crowd, the boom and crash of its noise, was adrenaline and inspiration – “all of us were having the same aim,” Fiona said.
The city’s leader, Beijing-backed Carrie Lam, would have to relent, Fiona thought. 
Faced with the will of so many citizens – a million came out that day, in a city of about 7.5 million – Lam had no choice but to meet with protesters and address their concerns.
That’s not what happened.
Three days later, the Hong Kong police shot rubber bullets and tear gas into a crowd.
On July 1, protesters wearing yellow construction hats and gauze masks stormed the city’s Legislative Council building on the 22nd anniversary of the handover from the British. 
They smashed through glass doors with hammers, poles and road barriers, spray-painting the walls as the chaos churned – “HONG KONG IS NOT CHINA.”

On the night of November 16, as Fiona sat on the terrace at Polytechnic, a teenager slouched at his post on a pedestrian bridge on the other side of the school. 
Reaching across a highway between the back of the university and a subway stop, the bridge could be a point of entry for police, the protesters feared.
The road underneath the bridge led to the Cross-Harbour Tunnel, a main artery linking Hong Kong island and the Kowloon Peninsula. 
The protesters had blocked that route, hoping to trigger a citywide strike. 
It was becoming clear that would not happen.
The teenager on the bridge, whose full name includes Pak and who sometimes goes by Paco, had the sleeves of his black Adidas windbreaker rolled up his arms. 
His glasses jutted out of the eye-opening of his ski mask. 
The 17-year-old, thick-set and volatile, recently had gotten kicked out of his house after arguing with his parents about the protests. 
They’re both from mainland China, Pak explained. 
“They always say, ‘Kill the protesters; the government is right.’”
There was a divide between him and his parents that couldn’t be crossed, he said. 
As a student in Hong Kong, he received a relatively liberal education at school, complete with the underpinnings of Western philosophical and political thought.
Pak, second from right, spent shifts guarding the bridge during the standoff at Polytechnic. 
A stockpile of arrows, bricks and umbrellas sits on a pedestrian bridge at Polytechnic University. 

“I was born in Hong Kong. I know what is freedom. I know what is democracy. I know what is freedom of speech,” Pak said, his voice rising with each sentence.
His parents, on the other hand, were educated and raised on the mainland. 
His shorthand for what that meant: “You know, we should love the Party, we should love Mao Zedong, blah, blah, blah.”
In his downtime, Pak hunched over an empty green Jolly Shandy Lemon bottle and poured lighter fluid inside. 
He gestured to containers of cooking and peanut oil and said he added them as well because they helped the fire both burn and stick once the glass exploded.
He couldn’t count how many he’d filled in the past two days at Polytechnic. 
Pak was working a shift as a lookout on the bridge. 
He guzzled soda and coffee to stay awake, lifting his mask to slurp, revealing a round chin and an adolescent’s light dusting of hair on his upper lip.
There was a mattress on the floor around the corner for quick naps. 
On a board leaning against the side of the walkway in front of him, a message was scrawled in capital letters: EYES OPEN!
Where did he think it was all headed? 
Pak put the bottle down and said he saw nothing but struggle ahead. 
“I think the violence of the protests will be increased; it will be upgraded,” he said. 
“But we have no choice.”
When Pak was 12 years old, he watched news coverage of a massive, peaceful protest in Hong Kong, the 2014 “Umbrella Revolution,” a sit-in that called for universal suffrage. 
The movement ended with protesters being hit by tear gas and hauled off to jail.
The nonviolent tactics, Pak said, got them nowhere.
Did he worry that the violence was taking place so near to a People’s Liberation Army barracks?
Not at all. 
That morning, a separate barracks in Hong Kong was in the news when some of its soldiers, in exercise shorts and T-shirts, walked out to the road carrying red buckets and helped clean up debris left by protesters near the city’s Baptist University. 
The event made both local and international headlines for the rarity of PLA soldiers’ appearance in public. 
Under the city’s mini-constitution, the Chinese military can be called by the Hong Kong government to help maintain public order, but they “shall not interfere” in local affairs.
“I think they are testing us. If we attack the PLA, the PLA can shoot us and say, ‘OK, we were defending ourselves,’” Pak said. 
“If we don’t attack the PLA, they will cross the line, again and again.”
But, he said, if the protesters continued ramping up violence against the cops, maybe the PLA would be called in. 
And that, he said, would hand the protest movement victory.
“Other countries like [the] British and America can protect human rights in Hong Kong by sending troops to protect us,” he said. 
It was, under any reading of the situation, a far-fetched idea. 
Hong Kong is by international law the domain of China; the Chinese Communist Party can send in troops to clamp down on civil unrest. 
There’s not been a hint of any Western power being interested in intervening on the ground.
Pak was right about one thing, though. 
Police officers later massed on the other side of the bridge, piling out of their vehicles and walking in a long file to the head of the structure. 
The protesters lit the bridge ablaze. 
People screamed. 
Flames leapt. 
A funnel of black smoke filled the air.
The next night, Pak didn’t reply to notes sent by Telegram, the encrypted messaging app he used. 
A day later, he still didn’t answer notes asking where he was. 
The day after that, the same. 
Pak was gone.

The young man lay his hands down on the table. 
They were bandaged and his fingers curved over in an unnatural crook. 
He’d not been out of his family’s house much in two weeks. 
Tommy, 19, shredded his hands on a rope when he squeezed it hard as his body whooshed down off a bridge on the side of Polytechnic University.
They were better now, his fingers. 
A photograph he sent just after, on November 20, showed a deep pocket of flesh ripped from his left pinkie, close to the bone by the look of it, and skin shredded across both hands. 
“I didn’t wear gloves,” he explained.
After hitting the ground, he’d rushed to a line of waiting vehicles, driven by “parents” – protester slang for volunteers who show up to whisk them away from dangerous situations.
On the morning of November 18, while still inside Polytechnic, he had sent a note saying his actual parents knew he was there and he couldn’t find a way out.
Reporter Tom Lasseter exchanges messages on Telegram with Tommy during and after the standoff. 

“Worst case might be the police coming in polyu arresting all the people inside and beat them up,” he said in a note on Telegram, the chat platform. 
“I’m like holy shit and i gotta be safe and not arrested.”
That evening, he was still there. 
He didn’t see a way to escape. 
Tommy went to the “front line” to face off with the police, not far from the ledge where Fiona sat a couple nights before. 
Tommy carried a makeshift shield, a piece of wood and then part of a plastic road barrier, to protect himself from the blasts of a water cannon. 
He didn’t make it very far.
Unlike most of the protesters who were around him, Tommy is a student at Polytechnic. 
He has worked hard to get there.
He’s a kid from a far-flung village up toward the border with the mainland, where both of his parents are from. 
Everyone in his village opposes the protests, he said, and there are “triads” in the area, members of organized-crime groups that are doing Beijing’s bidding.
Was he sorry that he’d put himself in danger?
“No regrets,” came the first text message response, at 7:29 p.m., even as police continued to mass outside Polytechnic and fears grew of a violent storming of the campus.
“They are wrong”
“We’re doing the right thing”
“It’s so unforgettable and good”
Hours later, he went down the rope.
Tommy, back to camera on the left, on the streets of Hong Kong a couple weeks after the standoff ended. 

Now, meeting to talk after a visit to a clinic for his hands, Tommy said he wasn’t sure what would come next for his city. 
Or himself. 
Although the university was still closed, he’d been keeping up with his studies, emailing professors and working on a paper about Hong Kong’s solid-waste treatment policy. 
Unable to go to the gym because of the hand injury – his athletic frame sheathed in an Adidas jogging suit – Tommy had been feeling restless.
It was obvious the troubles would continue, he said. 
“Carrie Lam will not accept the demands, the protesters will keep going, people will keep getting arrested,” he said. 
“The government wants to arrest all the people.”
But the future would still arrive and he had his own dreams: of a wife and a family, and being a man who provided for them. 
Tommy said he’d been thinking of applying for a government job after graduation. 
They’re steady and have good benefits.
He would also remain a part of the protest movement.
How could he manage both?
Tommy paused a moment before answering. 
Then, he said: “I have to become two people.”

On the afternoon of December 1, life was sunshine and breeze at the Hong Kong Cultural Centre. Inside, a youth orchestra was scheduled to play its annual concert, billed as “collaging Chinese music treasures from various soundscapes of China.” 
Out front, facing the water, a band played cover songs – belting out the lyrics to Bon Jovi’s “You Give Love a Bad Name.” 
Couples strolled on the boardwalk. 
The palms swayed. 
A shop sold ice cream.
And there was Pak, sitting on a bench. 
He’d been arrested trying to flee Polytechnic in the early morning hours of November 19. 
After a day spent in a police station, he made bail and moved back in with his parents.
Out in the open, in blue sweatpants and a grey sweatshirt, he was a pudgy teenager with the awkward habit of pushing his eyeglasses up the bridge of his nose as he spoke.
He had a couple pimples above his left eye. 
Also, he was now facing a rioting charge, and had to report back to the police station in a few weeks.
Since his disappearance, the siege at Polytechnic had ended. 
The protesters simmered down. 
There was an election for local district councillors, and pro-democracy candidates won nearly 90% of 452 seats.
Victorious pro-democracy candidates in district council local elections gather outside the campus of Polytechnic University. 

But two weeks after his arrest, Pak had shown up ready to protest again. 
A march was slated to start in a couple hours. 
He’d taken a bus down from one of Hong Kong’s poorest districts, with a black backpack that held his dark clothes and mask.
The lesson of the elections, he said, was that most Hong Kong citizens not only back the protests but “accept the violence level.” 
Otherwise, he said, they would have rebuked the reform ticket and cast their lot with pro-government candidates.
“I think,” he said, “the violence of the protesters needs to upgrade to setting off bombs.”
He’d been reading about the Russian Revolution and Vladimir Lenin
If he saw irony in studying the architect of the Soviet communist dictatorship while contemplating his own fight against the world’s preeminent Communist Party, he didn’t say so.
“The protesters, I think, will need some weapons, like rifles,” he said.
If it wasn’t possible to buy them, he said, it seemed easy enough to ransack police cars or even stations to steal them. 
He described how that could be done.
The protests that day veered back to confrontation. 
A black flag with the words “HONG KONG INDEPENDENCE” flapped above the crowd. 
The scene to the north, in Kowloon, “descended into chaos as rioters hijacked public order events and resorted to destructive acts like building barricades on roads, setting fires and vandalising public facilities,” according to a police account. 
Any hopes that the elections might bring peace seemed fragile. 
December was off to a turbulent start.

In the weeks after walking out of Polytechnic University, slipping past the police, Fiona kept coming back to the heat of the protests. 
An assembly to support those who protested at Polytechnic. 
A rally to stop the use of tear gas, which featured little children carrying yellow balloons and a march past the city’s Legislative Council building.
And on a Saturday afternoon, the last day of November, a gathering of students and the elderly at the city’s Chater Garden. 
The park sits among thick trappings of wealth and power – the private Hong Kong Club, rows of bank buildings and, just down the street, luxury laced across the store windows of Chanel and Cartier. Fiona was with a friend toward the back, on the top of a wall, out of sight of the TV cameras. 
Her face was hidden behind a mask, as usual. 
Even between protesters, they usually pass nicknames and nods, with nothing that identifies them in daily life.
Her friend, a boy who goes to the same high school, held forth on revolution and the perils of greater mainland China influence in Hong Kong. 
Fiona listened, quietly. 
She nodded her head. 
She looked out at the crowd. 
It felt good to see that she was not alone, Fiona said. 
Though, she said, it was hard to tell where the movement was headed.
It could grind into the sort of underground movement that Tommy hinted at. 
It could erupt in the boom of Pak’s bloody fantasy.
For Fiona, she knew there was always the danger that police might track down her earlier presence at Polytechnic, ending her precarious dance between homework and street unrest.
But sitting there, as the chants echoed and the sun began to slide down the sky over Hong Kong, Fiona said there was no choice but to keep fighting.
A week later, on Dec. 8, Fiona was at Victoria Park, almost six months to the day since her first protest started there. 
Hundreds of thousands of people had come for the march. 
It took Fiona an hour just to get out of the park as the throngs slowly squeezed onto the road outside.
When they saw messages on their cellphones that police had massed down one side street, Fiona and three friends threw on their respirator masks and goggles. 
As they jogged in that direction, a stranger in the crowd handed them an umbrella; another stranger gave them bottles of water. 
They joined a group of others, clutching umbrellas and advancing toward police lines, then coming to a halt.
No tear gas or rubber bullets came. 
The police looked to have taken a step back.
Fiona and her friends dawdled, unsure of what to do. 
They joined the march, a great mass of people churning through Hong Kong, at one point holding cell phones aloft, an ocean of bobbing lights. 
They screamed obscenities at police when they saw them, with Fiona showing a middle finger and calling for their families to die. 
They watched a man throw a hammer at the Bank of China building and heard the crash of breaking glass.
Someone pulled out a can of black spray paint. 
In the middle of the road, Fiona and her friends took turns writing on the pavement. 
They left a message: “If we burn, you burn with us!”
Fiona, on the left, watches as a friend paints graffiti across the road during the December 8 protest. 

jeudi 12 décembre 2019

A Defiant Stand for Freedom

Hong Kong’s struggle against tyranny, and why it matters
By Claudia Rosett




The last time a despotic power devastated Hong Kong was during World War II. 
On December 8, 1941, Imperial Japanese troops poured over the hills from China, overwhelmed the main line of British colonial defenses, and took up positions on the Kowloon peninsula, across the harbor from Hong Kong Island. 
From there, they shelled and bombed the island, then crossed the harbor and on Christmas Day completed a subjugation of the city that lasted until 1945, when Japan lost the war and Britain retook control.
Today, the tyranny ravaging Hong Kong is that of its own sovereign master, the People’s Republic of China. 
The tactics are less broadly lethal but brutal nonetheless, targeting the freedoms vital to the soul of this vibrant city. 
China is trying to grind down Hong Kong’s democracy movement, while preserving global-facing amenities like the airport and the banking system. 
It’s a campaign fought with propaganda, surveillance, arrests, and a local police force turned against Hong Kong’s own people. 
Beijing has threatened Hong Kong with “the abyss” and cautioned that “those who play with fire will perish by it.” 
Chinese dictator Xi Jinping warned in October, clearly aiming at Hong Kong’s protesters, that any attempt to divide China would end in “crushed bodies and shattered bones.”
Contrary to China’s claims, the Hong Kong crisis is not an internal matter. 
It is a violation of China’s treaty promise, after Britain’s 1997 handover of its former colony, that Hong Kong would be governed as an autonomous territory, entitled to all its accustomed rights and freedoms, for at least 50 years—a promise that China dubbed “one country, two systems.” 
It is also a warning to the world of how Beijing views frees societies and what Xi’s “China Dream” of global dominance has in store for them. 
Hong Kong is the only enclave under China’s flag with any freedom to speak out. 
At great risk, Hong Kong’s people have sounded alarms about the methods and ambitions of China’s ruling Communist Party. 
Americans needs to understand why, in this twenty-first-century contest of values, Hong Kong’s fight is our fight, too.
Hong Kong exemplifies the marvels of freedom. 
Built with free trade and minimal government, a haven in British colonial days for refugees fleeing Communist China, it is a mighty entrepôt conjured out of little more than a rocky island, a magnificent harbor, and generations of freewheeling human enterprise.
Until this year, Hong Kong figured on the world scene chiefly as a great place to do business. 
Home to 7.5 million people, with a large expatriate community, including more than 80,000 Americans, the city has long served as a crossroads of Asia and the main conduit for China’s financial dealings with world markets. 
Via Hong Kong, foreign investors in China could rely on the legacy of British law, vastly preferable to the vagaries of China’s Communist Party-driven system. 
China, in turn, could avail itself of Hong Kong’s banking system and trade, leveraging to its own benefit the privileges accorded to a territory operating as part of the free world, though under China’s flag.
At the time of the 1997 handover, many worried that China would plunder Hong Kong outright, killing the golden goose. 
But for more than two decades, no grand crisis materialized. 
Yes, Beijing was leaching away Hong Kong’s freedoms, reneging on the promise of free elections, overwhelming the city’s culture with mainland visitors— and threatening, disenfranchising, and, in some cases, jailing its most active pro-democracy figures. 
And yes, Hong Kong’s people pushed back, staging many demonstrations, some quite large—notably the 2014 Umbrella Movement’s 79-day occupation of Hong Kong’s Central business district. (Umbrellas became the symbol of the protests after they were used as protection from pepper spray.) But these protests were peaceful. 
The world yawned. 
Business carried on.
Then, in 2019, Hong Kong became a battleground. 
As it turned out, China had greatly underestimated the value Hong Kong’s people attached not solely to prosperity, but to freedom. 
In June, Hong Kong’s Beijing-installed Chief Executive Carrie Lam—a longtime Hong Kong civil servant with the political instincts of Marie Antoinette—tried to rush through Hong Kong’s rubberstamp Legislative Council (Legco) a law that would have allowed extradition to mainland China, breaching the protection afforded by Hong Kong’s separate and independent legal system. Faced with local objections that this would spell the end of whatever liberty and justice Hong Kong still enjoyed under the eroding promise of “one country, two systems,” Lam refused to reconsider.
Hong Kong erupted in the most massive protests the city had ever seen. 
It was heroic, given the risks; and heartbreaking, given the prospects. 
On June 9, a record 1 million people marched through the streets, mass protest being their only recourse in a system rigged by Beijing to deprive them of a direct say in their own government. 
Lam shrugged it off. 
Three days later, protesters physically blocked lawmakers from entering the legislature to pass the bill. 
Police responded with teargas, beatings, and arrests. 
When Lam then suspended passage of the bill but refused to withdraw it entirely, denouncing the protesters as rioters, an estimated 2 million people marched—more than one-quarter of the city’s population. 
Lam gave them nothing. 
This focused public attention on Lam herself, and the perils and injustice of a political setup that left Hong Kong’s people no way to choose or depose their own chief executive. 
In short order, Hong Kongers came up with an amplified list of demands, including universal suffrage.
A signal moment came on July 1, the anniversary of the 1997 handover, when protesters broke down doors and windows of the legislature, briefly occupied the main chamber, spray-painted black Hong Kong’s Beijing-imposed emblem of a Bauhinia flower, proclaimed a list of demands for justice and democracy, and graffitied a message in Chinese on the nearby premises: “It was you who taught me that peaceful protests are useless.”
A complex culture of protest rapidly developed, incorporating the lessons of the 2014 Umbrella Movement. 
Some brought their young children to huge, peaceful rallies and marches. 
Civil servants, bankers, teachers, and students participated in city-wide strikes and impromptu demonstrations. 
Old and young linked hands to form human chains for miles, calling for freedom and democracy and chanting the Cantonese slang phrase ga yau, meaning “add oil”—a call to keep going. 
Protesters came up with a haunting anthem, “Glory to Hong Kong,” and began singing it at sports matches, in shopping malls, and while they marched in protest through the streets.

Because leaders of the Umbrella Movement had gone to prison, the protesters of 2019 avoided anointing leaders. 
Crowdsourcing tactics online, under a slogan plucked from a Bruce Lee movie, “Be water,” they staged flash protests around the city. 
They developed a uniform of sorts and an order of battle. 
The “frontliners” wore helmets, goggles, gas masks, and black t-shirts, and wielded as weapons an ad hoc arsenal that escalated from umbrellas, laser pointers, and bricks to Molotov cocktails, slingshots, and flaming arrows. 
Support protesters, including volunteer medical teams and bucket brigades, resupplied the frontlines with everything from bottled water to first aid supplies. 
Across the city, donations rolled in to support the protests: money, food, drink, and protest gear. When police launched a dragnet in August, setting up subway and ferry checkpoints, anonymous Hong Kongers got in their cars and whisked protesters to safety in an impromptu vehicular operation they dubbed “Dunkirk.”
Instead of trying to defuse the protests with talks and compromise, Lam defaulted to the methods of a police state, dispatching Hong Kong’s cops to wield force. 
Hong Kong’s police, once regarded as among the finest in Asia, were transformed into shock troops for China, trying to beat, gas, and terrorize the democracy movement into submission. 
Police began referring to protesters as “cockroaches.” 


Stories circulated that ranks of local cops had been beefed up with members of China’s People’s Armed Police, overheard speaking mainland Mandarin rather than Hong Kong’s Cantonese dialect.
By early December, police had fired more than 15,000 rounds of tear gas, blitzing not only streets across much of the city but also subway stations, residential buildings, shopping malls, and universities. 
They pepper-sprayed pro-democracy lawmakers who were trying to reason with them, shot three protesters with live ammunition, drenched not only protesters but a Kowloon mosque with caustic blue dye from water cannons, and carried out more than 6,000 arrests. 
The protesters escalated their tactics to smashing the windows of pro-Beijing businesses and setting fire to subway entrances and street barricades. 
The police were caught on video beating and kicking trussed-up protesters and launching unprovoked attacks on bystanders and journalists. 
In November, an attempted police raid on Hong Kong’s Polytechnic University turned into a flaming battle, followed by a 12-day police siege from which some protesters escaped by abseiling from a pedestrian walkway or traversing the sewers.
Through it all, Lam remained cloistered in official surroundings, issuing periodic statements that there could be no serious dialogue until “calm and order” was restored. 
Never mind that it was precisely the lack of any genuine government dialogue or compromise that was driving the escalating havoc.
One of the most potent protests came in mid-summer, when thousands of protesters occupied the city’s airport, in a bid to force the government’s hand on a world stage, and in a venue where the police might surely hesitate to respond harshly. 
Hong Kong’s airport is one of the world’s busiest. 
Travelers transiting the outer halls of the huge building found themselves surrounded by Hong Kongers holding up signs in English and Chinese denouncing the encroaching tyranny of China. Protesters packed the arrival hall, their chant echoing through the vast atrium: “Fight for Freedom! Stand with Hong Kong!”
Near the departure desks, beneath an official sign welcoming visitors to “Asia’s World City,” protesters hung a huge banner, flanked by American flags, saying “President Trump Please Liberate Hong Kong.” 
They papered the walls, windows, and baggage carts with signs blasting police brutality and demanding justice. 
On the information desks, they replaced the brochures for shopping, dining, and Disneyland with pamphlets calling for democracy, apologizing to visitors for the inconvenience. 
One young man, wearing the protesters’ trademark black t-shirt and face mask, roamed the halls with a hand-lettered sign offering to explain the situation to baffled travelers: “Feel free to ask me, I do speak English!”
Hong Kong’s government, forced briefly to shut down the airport, finally ended the inconvenience with threats, riot police, pepper spray, arrests, and greatly constricted access. 
Large security cordons now control entry to the building, admitting only those with tickets and passports. 
Teams of security agents patrol the premises. 
Public transport to the airport is now closely monitored and sometimes greatly curtailed, to thwart any crowds heading that way.
This lockdown did nothing to address the protesters’ demands for liberty and justice, but for official purposes it fixed the problem at the airport. 
The government’s solution for the airport appears to be the template for the future. 
In Beijing’s scheme of calm and order, Hong Kong is not a polity of, by, and for the people; it is merely a large asset of China’s government. 
As such, it is the profitable utilities, not the people themselves, that the government would protect, under the cloying slogan: “Treasure Hong Kong: Our Home.”
I’ve loved Hong Kong since I first beheld it, during a family stopover decades ago. 
I lived and worked there from 1986 to 1993, as editorial-page editor of what was then the print edition of the Asian Wall Street Journal. 
With Hong Kong’s glorious sweep of hills and harbor, its kaleidoscopic street life, its savvy mix of Chinese and Western traditions, and the constant hum of commerce, it felt like the most invigorating city on the planet. 
You could fly out of Hong Kong to report on the region’s tyrannies, observing the strictures and enduring the minders of, say, China, Vietnam, or North Korea. 
Then you could return to Hong Kong, with its can-do culture and laissez-faire ways—and exhale. 
In the summer of 1989, returning to Hong Kong after reporting in Beijing on the June 4 Tiananmen massacre, I was speechless with relief. 
Hong Kong residents were staging huge protests against the repression in China. 
I was back in the free world.
That’s not how it feels today. 
In September, Lam finally announced that she would withdraw the despised extradition bill. 
But by then, her administration was importing some of the cruelties of China’s system wholesale.
During many weeks of reporting there since June, I found an atmosphere of defiance edged with fear; a city of people in face masks, keeping a wary eye out for advancing cordons of riot police. 
Under pressure from China, companies such as Hong Kong’s flagship airline, Cathay Pacific, carried out purges of personnel who had in any way shown sympathy with the protesters, an intimidation described locally as “white terror.” 
Hong Kongers, when they take their leave these days, are less likely to say “goodbye” than to warn, “take care.”
How did it come to this? 
The answer tracks back to the era of Queen Victoria, Britain’s Opium Wars, and unintended consequences, good and bad, played out over almost two centuries. 
The British did not set out to develop Hong Kong into a world-class metropolis of millions; they simply wanted a trading post, for the noxious purpose of selling opium into China. 
So they went to war to get it. 
In the 1842 Treaty of Nanjing, China ceded to Britain in perpetuity the island of Hong Kong, a name which in Cantonese means “Fragrant Harbor.” 
At the time, it was home to a fishing village, a war prize famously ridiculed by Britain’s foreign secretary, Lord Palmerston, as “a barren island with hardly a house upon it.”

The British turned it into a Crown Colony, named its harbor for their queen, and set up shop. 
They fought a second Opium War, and in 1860, China ceded the tip of the Kowloon peninsula, also in perpetuity. 
In 1898 Britain signed a 99-year lease with China for some adjacent turf, called the New Territories, stretching up to the hills that form a natural boundary with mainland China. 
That produced the full map of what we know as modern Hong Kong.
Out of this, about a half century later, came one of the great economic miracles of modern Asia. 
Hong Kong at the end of World War II was a shattered city with a population of less than 600,000. 
In 1949, Mao Zedong imposed his Communist revolution on China. 
Millions fled to Hong Kong, embracing its culture of enterprise and providing labor and talent that under British liberty and law created soaring wealth.
Not that the British permitted genuine democracy in Hong Kong; governors appointed in London ruled the colony. 
But behind that setup were the checks and balances of British democracy, to which the governors were ultimately accountable. 
Hong Kong’s people, post-World War II, had freedom of speech and assembly, and an independent judiciary based on British rule of law.
Hong Kong was a colony richly primed for democracy and independence, in an era when the British empire was breaking up and decolonization was sweeping the globe. 
The United Nations, founded at the end of World War II, compiled a list of colonies slated for eventual self-determination. 
Initially, Hong Kong was on it. 
But in the early 1970s, China swiped away that right. 
In 1971, during Richard Nixon’s rapprochement with China, Beijing’s Communist government took over the UN seat for China, held until then by the rival Nationalist government on Taiwan. 
China immediately joined the UN committee on decolonization. 
Within weeks, the committee removed Hong Kong from its list of colonies, on grounds that its fate was China’s affair. 
That was the end of any UN support for Hong Kong choosing its own future.
When China informed the British that there would be no renewal of the lease on the New Territories, due to expire in 1997, London had no appetite for a showdown over Hong Kong—considered indefensible without the New Territories, and dependent on China for its water supply. 
In 1984, Britain and China signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration, scheduling the handover for July 1, 1997. 
This treaty, deposited with the United Nations, stipulated that for 50 years following the handover, Hong Kong would be governed as a Special Administrative Region, enjoying a “high degree of autonomy,” with its people retaining their “Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel”—and a host of others.
Thus did Hong Kong become the world’s only free society with a distinct shelf date. 
For Britain—handing over a substantially free population to a tyranny—the grace period allowed a face-saving retreat, bolstered by the bequest of a mini-constitution, or “Basic Law” for Hong Kong, hammered out with Beijing before the handover, in which China agreed to the “ultimate aim” of allowing Hong Kong’s people to elect their own chief executive and entire legislature via universal suffrage. 
Conveniently for Beijing, no date was spelled out for this goal.
For China, then miserably self-impoverished by decades of Communist central planning, acquiring Hong Kong was a colossal windfall. 
As a bonus, it carried the implied message that the world’s great democracies, under pressure from Beijing, would not defend their own.
If the promised half century of grace for Hong Kong sounded like a long time back in 1997, it doesn’t anymore. 
Officially, the clock has ticked down to 28 years remaining. 
In practice, if China has its way, the deadline will arrive much sooner. 
Meantime, a generation born in Hong Kong around the time of the handover has come of age. 
Many are descended from parents or grandparents who fled Communist repression in China. 
They describe themselves not as Chinese but as Hong Kongers. 
They are the vanguard of Hong Kong’s protests, and many say they are prepared to die for freedom.
This passion did not appear out of thin air. 
Nor is it a product—as China’s propaganda has charged—of foreign influence organized by sinister “black hands.” 
Hong Kong’s protesters today are heirs to a homegrown democracy movement that dates to British colonial days. 
It was fostered decades ago by leaders such as barrister and former lawmaker Martin Lee, who in 1997 greeted the handover with the defiant declaration: “The flame of democracy has been ignited and is burning in the hearts of our people. It will not be extinguished.” 
Then there’s self-made businessman Jimmy Lai, publisher since 1995 of Hong Kong’s widely circulated pro-democracy Chinese newspaper, Apple Daily, who told me in an interview this August: 
“We can’t give up. If we give up, we will have to endure the darkness of dictatorship.” 
Lee, now in his eighties, and Lai, now in his seventies, both marched at the front of some of this year’s protests.
Down the generations, this movement is packed with brave and articulate figures, including pro-democracy lawmakers whom police during the past six months of protest have tear-gassed, pepper-sprayed, and drenched with water cannon. 
Some of the youngest democracy advocates, such as Joshua Wong and Nathan Law, both in their mid-twenties, have served time in prison for their leadership of the 2014 Umbrella movement—and emerged to continue arguing the case for Hong Kong’s rights.
Hong Kong’s passion for democracy was on rich display in elections on November 24 to seats on the city’s district councils. 
These are relatively powerless positions, dealing with local matters such as bus routes and trash collection. 
But they’re the only elections in Hong Kong that entail a genuinely democratic process. 
Hong Kongers turned out in record numbers to send a message at the polls, delivering a landslide for pro-democracy candidates, who won control of 17 of the 18 district councils.
These are valiant achievements against fearful odds. 
Hong Kong’s freedom movement is up against the regime of Xi Jinping, who, since he became president in 2013, has been ratcheting up repression across China, styling himself as the modern Mao. 
Under the label of perfecting “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” the 66-year-old Xi has been establishing himself as president for life of a techno-authoritarian state. 
China’s system now includes a program of “social credit,” meant to engineer human behavior to please the party, and reeducation camps to brainwash Uyghur Muslims. 
Hong Kong’s protesters harbor well-grounded fears that Xi might have similar plans in store for them. 
“If this movement dies, we’ll be living in the Orwellian society that is coming,” says one Hong Kong academic.
Xi has thrown visible support for years behind Lam. 
In 2019, after Lam triggered the huge protests and then further enraged the public with her refusal to concede to any demands or corral the police, she was caught on a recording, leaked to Reuters, lamenting that she could no longer go to shopping malls or a hair salon for fear of “black-masked young people waiting for me.” 
A month later, she incited yet more public fury by invoking despotic emergency powers to ban face masks. 
The following month, Xi summoned her to an audience in Shanghai; Chinese state media reported that he still firmly supported her. 
By then, casualties in Hong Kong were extensive, rubble lined many of the streets, and Hong Kong’s economy had tipped into recession.
Should Americans care? 
Especially since the end of the Cold War, America has spent blood and treasure trying to foster free societies around the globe, on the reasonable theory that this tends toward a safer, more prosperous world. 
It’s a tall order. 
But in Hong Kong, with no grand programs of foreign aid and consultancies, and under the shadow these past 22 years of Chinese sovereignty, a free society has materialized, and its people are calling for us to stand with them against tyranny. 
If we do nothing but watch while China swallows Hong Kong whole, Beijing will learn the relevant lesson.
The endgame here is desperately uncertain. 
Neither America nor any other nation is likely to go to war in defense of Hong Kong. 
An armed conflict, even if meant to defend the city, would likely destroy it. 
But America can enforce its new Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which President Trump signed into law last month, and which requires annual reports on whether China is respecting Hong Kong’s rights under “one country two systems”—and imposes penalties if China is not. 
We can expose the lies with which China tries to discredit Hong Kong’s democracy movement. 
We can sound the alarm generally on China’s maneuvers to undermine the democratic world, and we can build up the U.S. military both to counter directly China’s military rise and to give America’s leaders a stronger hand in dealing with Beijing. 
We could offer asylum to as many of Hong Kong’s people as America can absorb. 
Not least, we can look with respect and gratitude on a people who prize freedom so highly that, while they call for us to stand with them, they themselves, outnumbered and certainly outgunned, are facing down China’s tyranny on the frontlines, in the streets of their own city.

lundi 2 décembre 2019

The Hong Kong protest movement won the elections battle – but the war over our five demands is still ongoing

As encouraging as the victory was, we have a long way to go before we can turn our attention away from the central cause
By Joshua Wong and Billy Fung Jing-en

The district council (DC) elections took place last week in Hong Kong with an unprecedentedly high turnout rate – 71 per cent.
And as predicted, the pro-democracy bloc earned a landslide victory amid the ongoing anti-extradition law movement.
Some have said that such a substantial triumph may herald a new era in Hong Kong
And after the US signed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act into law, support for the movement is growing vigorously. 
The atmosphere in Hong Kong too, has been relatively more optimistic in recent days.
It is undeniable that such a landslide victory in the local elections is encouraging. 
It sends a clear message to the international community that the pro-democracy camp is the majority in Hong Kong. 
It goes without saying that helping hands from the free world since the outbreak of the anti-extradition law movement are of paramount importance to our democratic way of life.
In the UK, politicians not only voiced concern for our human rights in parliament but also came all the way to Hong Kong for the sake of demonstrating their support. 
Citizens in Hong Kong have close ties with the UK and that relationship has proved to be one of the keys to surviving during the havoc. 
Without their support, we may not have been able to achieve such an outstanding victory.
US Senate has approved the bill to support human rights in Hong Kong
Throughout the elections, the movement gravely warned Beijing that it should abide by the “One Country, Two Systems” principle as promised during the Sino-British negotiation, and should never attempt to force its legal and political systems on Hong Kong. 
Mutual respect is the crux of the implementation of basic law and the two-systems approach. 
Without it, we will continue to seek international help.
Hopeful as political resistance may seem, however, our future is still generally gloomy.
Statistically speaking, the pro-Beijing camp, as with previous elections, still captured almost 40 per cent of the total vote, despite the turmoil caused by the militant and, in my view, brainless government over the past few months.
The ratio demonstrated the considerable significance of hardcore pro-government supporters, and despite our differences, we shall never be contemptuous of such a sizeable “minority”.
After all, in the long run, pro-establishment forces will still reign if and when participation in protests abates, and the red candidates advance their electoral manipulation. 
Just look at the result of the DC elections in 2007.
After half a million of Hong Kongers rallied on the streets and protested against the 2003 national security law, the pro-democracy camp won a majority in DC elections in the same year, too. 
But in the end, passion dissipated and the pro-Beijing bloc, election campaign and coordination experts, supplanted the pro-democracy camp with red candidates in the next DC elections four years later. 
It should serve as a reminder that we should not turn our heads simply because superficial victories like these.

Pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong still face a rocky road ahead.

Similarly, although it is very encouraging to see support for the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, there is no guarantee that the US will promptly initiate an investigation and impose individual sanctions against senior officials in Hong Kong who repeatedly impinge on human rights.
These concerns have rendered us some room for reflection – where will we be after all this is over?
The battle in the previous months was not fought for electoral victory or international connections. The DC elections and international lobbying are aspects of our cause for sure, but comrades who sacrifice their life and freedom in this movement, like Ling-kit Leung and Tsz-lok Chow, fight it with one single idea – to achieve our five demands. 
We crave democracy and justice. 
We, therefore, have a long way to go and shall never turn our heads on account of small victories like these.
As our former prime minister Winston Churchill said in 1942, “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” 
We would like to make a plea to our old friends in the UK once again to work closely with us in this perennial struggle until our five demands have materialised.

vendredi 29 novembre 2019

Barking Chinese Never Bite

Beijing's vociferous threats over bill supporting Hong Kong laughable, China expert 
Edmund DeMarche 




Gordon Chang, the author of "The Coming Collapse of China," said Thursday that Beijing’s threats of taking "countermeasures" over the U.S. law backing the protests in Hong Kong are “laughable” and that China is in no position to anger its best customer as its economy slumps.
Beijing was quick to admonish President Trump and Congress for passing two bills aimed at supporting human rights in Hong Kong. 
The Chinese foreign ministry said in a statement that the bills will only "strengthen the resolve of the Chinese people, including the Hong Kong people, and raise the sinister intentions and hegemonic nature of the U.S.," and promised vague "countermeasures."
Chang said in an email that anything Beijing can do "will hurt itself more than us, and given how close its economy is to the edge of the cliff the regime could end up doing itself in by retaliating."
He continued, "For four decades, we were told by elites and policymakers that we could not afford to upset China. Wednesday, President Trump did what his predecessors would not do — defend America from a China that is going after us. The same power that is encroaching on Hong Kong’s autonomy is attacking our society across the board."
Hong Kong, a former British colony that was granted semi-autonomy when China took control in 1997, has been rocked by six months of sometimes violent pro-democracy demonstrations after an extradition bill surfaced last summer that – if passed – would have sent alleged "criminals" in Hong Kong to China for trial.
The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which was sponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., requires that the U.S. conducts yearly reviews into Hong Kong’s autonomy from Beijing. 
If ever found unsatisfactory, the city's special status for U.S. trading could be tossed.
Up until Wednesday's announcement, President Trump did not indicate whether or not he would sign the bill. 
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo refused to answer a reporter's question about the president's leanings as recent as Tuesday.
"I signed these bills out of respect for President Xi, China, and the people of Hong Kong," President Trump said in a statement. 
"They are being enacted in the hope that Leaders and Representatives of China and Hong Kong will be able to amicably settle their differences leading to long term peace and prosperity for all."
The bills were applauded by protesters who see them as a warning to Beijing and Hong Kong.
"In any event, let the Chinese huff and puff over the bills President Trump signed," Chang wrote.
"Wednesday was a great day for America, and a great day for free societies across the world."

Chinazism

It has been a bad week for Beijing, with new support for pro-democracy protesters and detailed evidence of the repression in the north-western colony
The Guardian

Beijing was never going to welcome the news that the US had passed a law backing pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. 
But its anger today at Donald Trump’s signing of a bill it condemns as “full of prejudice and arrogance” perhaps had extra bite. 
This was its third blow in a week. 
On Monday, leaders woke up to a pro-democracy landslide in Hong Kong’s local elections, and the publication of leaked documents exposing the workings of concentration camps in East Turkestan, where at least a million Uighurs and other Muslims are detained.
China’s bullishness has already been challenged by the trade war and slowing economic growth, now at a 27-year low. 
President Trump has previously made it clear that he regards Hong Kong’s protesters as leverage, and has shown he does not want this law to hinder a trade deal that both sides need and appear to be close to agreeing. 
China is hoping he will not implement the law, which enables sanctions on individuals and the revocation of the region’s special trade status if annual reviews find that it has not retained sufficient autonomy.
The passage of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act may prove to be most important in embodying the striking shift in US attitudes towards China. 
The shift has taken place across the political spectrum and it is not primarily about what has changed in America, but what has changed in China: its ever-increasing authoritarianism under Xi Jinping.
Western engagement with China rested largely on a blithe and now utterly discredited assumption that economic liberalisation would bring political freedoms. 
The bilateral relationship is responding to the change in China’s relationship with its own people. 
The tightened grip has been seen most clearly on its periphery, in East Turkestan and Hong Kong, albeit by very different means and to very different degrees.
The erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy has been clearer precisely because it still enjoys freedoms and rights denied to people on the mainland, who do not get to deliver a verdict on their leaders. 
Though the district council elections are usually low stakes affairs, they had effectively become a referendum on the city’s political future. 
Communist authorities have believed that a “silent majority” would come out to reject the protests by voting for pro-Beijing candidates. 
The silent majority duly showed up – with turnout soaring in the biggest electoral exercise the city has seen – but overwhelmingly backed the other side. 
Pro-democracy candidates took 392 seats (to 60) and seized control of 17 out of 18 district councils. 
The message was clear. 
Hong Kong people embrace peaceful democratic means when they are available. 
And they are on the side of the protesters.Extraordinary levels of control and surveillance make it far harder to determine what is happening in East Turkestan, despite dogged researchers and horrifying accounts of abuse and torture from former camp inmates and their families. 
Now documents obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and shared with the Guardian and other media partners have laid bare their workings.
Authorities initally denied the camps and now portray them as "vocational training centres". 
The internal papers tell another story: “Never allow escapes.”
These two stories are connected by more than the wrath they have roused in Beijing. 
Despite the gulf between the cultures and experiences of the regions, people in Hong Kong increasingly cite the north-western colony as a kind of warning, seeing East Turkestan as at the far end of a slope down which they will slide unless they take a stand now.
In recent years, China’s economic might has silenced many critics and muted others. 
Though the new US law and renewed protests over the treatment of Muslim minorities in the wake of the leaked files suggest things may be evolving, many will decide it is too costly to care. 
After this week, however, they can no longer say they did not know.

Salvator Mundi

Traumatic defeat for China makes President Trump Hong Kong superhero
By Gabrielle Fonrouge


Hong Kong protesters hold up a photo President Trump tweeted of himself with his head on Rocky Balboa's body.

President Trump is Hong Kong’s sudden hero.
Hours after he signed two bills to support human rights in Hong Kong, enraging Chinese communistofficials, pro-democracy protesters in the beleaguered city held a “Thanksgiving Rally” Thursday night to commend him for taking the action.
And front and center at the rally were printouts of the president’s Wednesday tweet showing his head on Rocky Balboa’s chiseled body.
“Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong,” thousands of protestors chanted in a public square as they waved American flags and held up copies of the photo composite.
For the past six months, the former British colony has been rocked by mass protests that have spawned violence on both sides of the divide.
More than 5,000 people have been detained since the uprising began.
In the midst of a heated trade war between the US and China, President Trump unexpectedly signed the two bills on Wednesday after they passed the House and Senate nearly unanimously.
The new laws mandate sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials who carry out human rights abuses on the semiautonomous island, require an annual review of Hong Kong’s trade status and prohibit the export of specific nonlethal weapons to Hong Kong police.
Joshua Wong, a well-known pro-democracy activist who was among those who lobbied for the laws, told protesters Thursday their next goal is to get other Western leaders to follow in President Trump’s footsteps in order to put pressure on the Chinese government to give in to their demands.
On the mainland, Chinese government officials were enraged by the new laws and said President Trump is using Hong Kong as a pawn to hamper China’s growth and hit back at Beijing.
Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Le Yucheng told US Ambassador Terry Branstad that Beijing sees the move as “serious interference in China’s internal affairs,” a ministry statement said.
In response, the US Embassy in Beijing said China’s Communist Party “must honor its promises to the Hong Kong people.”
The protests started in June over a Chinese extradition bill that whittled away the freedoms promised to them when China regained control of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom in 1997.

jeudi 28 novembre 2019

Barking Chinese Never Bite

Enraged China Warns US of Retaliation Over Law Backing Hong Kong Protesters
President Trump on Wednesday signed into law congressional legislation which supported the protesters
Reuters



Anti-government protesters clean up after protests at the Polytechnic University in Hong Kong, China, November 16, 2019. 

Hong Kong -- China warned the United States on Thursday it would take "firm counter measures" in response to US legislation backing anti-government protesters in Hong Kong, and said attempts to interfere in the Chinese-ruled city were doomed to fail.
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed into law congressional legislation which supported the protesters despite angry objections from Beijing.
The legislation requires the State Department to certify, at least annually, that Hong Kong retains enough autonomy to justify favourable US trading terms that have helped the territory grow as a world financial center. 
It also threatens sanctions for human rights violations.
Beijing warned that the United States would shoulder the consequences of China's counter measures if it continued to "act arbitrarily" in regards to Hong Kong, according to a foreign ministry statement.
Hong Kong's Beijing-backed government said the legislation sent the wrong signal to demonstrators and "clearly interfered" with the city's internal affairs.
Anti-government protests have roiled the Chinese-ruled city for six months, at times forcing businesses, government, schools and even the international airport to close.
The financial hub has enjoyed a rare lull in violence over the past week, with local elections on Sunday delivering a landslide victory to pro-democracy candidates.
Hong Kong police entered a sprawling university campus on Thursday at the end of a nearly two-week siege that saw some of the worst clashes between protesters and security forces to have rocked the former British colony.
A team of about 100 plain-clothed police officers entered the city's battered Polytechnic University to collect evidence, removing dangerous items including petrol bombs which remain scattered around the campus.
It was not clear whether any protesters remained on site but officers said any that were found would receive medical treatment first.
Demonstrators in Hong Kong are angry at what they see as Chinese meddling in the freedoms promised to the former British colony when it returned to Chinese rule in 1997.
Polytechnic University on Kowloon peninsula was turned into a battleground in mid-November, when protesters barricaded themselves in and clashed with riot police in a hail of petrol bombs, water cannon and tear gas. 
About 1,100 people were arrested last week, some while trying to escape.
More than 5,800 people have been arrested since June, the numbers increasing exponentially in October and November.
Security teams from the university had scoured the maze of buildings at the red-bricked, sprawling campus, a focal point in recent weeks of the citywide anti-government protests that escalated in June, finding no one.