China is showing its true nature in Hong Kong. The U.S. must not watch from the sidelines.

By choosing violence and intimidation to silence Hong Kong, the Chinese Communist Party is once again showing its true nature. 
By Marco Rubio

Demonstrators at Tamar Park in Hong Kong on Tuesday.

Beijing recently reinforced its People’s Liberation Army garrison in Hong Kong with thousands of troops and authorized a new wave of arrests to intimidate peaceful demonstrators. 

In parallel, it blocked the Hong Kong government’s proposal to work out a compromise with the city’s massive and grassroots pro-democracy movement.
What began as a protest against an unjust extradition bill backed by China has now become a fight for Hong Kong’s autonomy and future. 

Yet what’s happening in Hong Kong is not simply China’s internal affair. 

The United States and other responsible nations are not watching from the sidelines.
The extradition bill is only the latest example of China’s many broken promises to the Hong Kong people and the world. 

Most obviously, the Chinese Communist Party is preventing the city’s government from acting with the autonomy that Beijing had promised it in a legally binding 1984 international treaty with Britain, under Hong Kong’s Basic Law, and in China’s diplomatic outreach to the United States and other nations.
In 2014, Beijing also backed off its commitment to allow Hong Kong citizens to choose their city’s chief executive through universal suffrage, a provocation that sparked the city’s massive Umbrella Movement protests. 

And in 2016 and 2017 , the High Court disqualified a total of six democratic lawmakers from their Legislative Council seats using a controversial interpretation of Hong Kong’s constitution.
Thirty years after People’s Liberation Army troops massacred reform activists and ordinary Chinese citizens on the way to Tiananmen Square, Beijing now appears poised to intervene overtly and aggressively in Hong Kong.
The paramilitary People’s Armed Police — built up in the aftermath of the Tiananmen massacre — has thousands of personnel and vehicles in Shenzhen, just across the boundary between mainland China and Hong Kong.
Chinese officials and state media have steadily escalated their warning rhetoric and outlined what they describe as the legal case for intervention based on “signs of terrorism.”
An unsigned editorial in Xinhua, a state-run news agency reflecting the institutional voice of the party center, claimed that Hong Kong is engaged in a “color revolution.”
The world ignores these warning signals at the peril of the Hong Kong people and the hundreds of thousands of foreigners — including roughly 85,000 U.S. citizens — living in the city.
China’s communists today are using the same messaging playbook that they have followed since they intervened in North Korea in 1950. 
We were surprised then; we should be prepared now.
The United States and the international community must make clear to Chinese leaders and power brokers that their aggression toward Hong Kong risks swift, severe and lasting consequences.
In particular, the administration should make clear that the United States can respond flexibly and robustly in Hong Kong.
Our options are much more than just a “nuclear option” of ending Hong Kong’s special status under U.S. law.
The Hong Kong Policy Act, authored by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and enacted in 1992, allows the president to apply to Hong Kong those laws that address the People’s Republic of China.
The law’s power is selective and flexible, however, and not necessarily all-or-nothing for Hong Kong’s special status.
For example, the Tiananmen sanctions could be applied to target the city’s police force, which has collaborated with organized crime, instigated violence and now is torturing detained demonstrators.
Hong Kong’s special status — and therefore Beijing’s ability to exploit and benefit from it — depends on the city being treated as a separate customs area, on open international financial connections and on the Hong Kong dollar’s peg to the U.S. dollar.
The United States both administratively and diplomatically can constrain these conditions.
The administration also can impose sanctions against individual officials who have committed serious human rights abuses under the Global Magnitsky Act, which enables sanctions against foreign individuals or entities.
In addition, Congress should pass the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, a bill that I co-authored with Sens. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), James E. Risch (R-Idaho) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.).
The bill, among other things, would mandate that officials in China and Hong Kong who have undermined the city’s autonomy are vulnerable to such sanctions.
The United States and other nations have options precisely because Beijing benefits from Hong Kong’s special status. 
Indeed, the city has proved irreplaceable as a gateway for international finance, even as China attempts to build up a mainland alternative.
China’s leaders must either respect Hong Kong’s autonomy and rule of law or know that their escalating aggression will inexorably lead them to face swift, severe and lasting consequences from the United States and the world.
Today, that choice is theirs.

Beijing's Hong Kong compromise is surely too little, too late

The incendiary extradition bill has been binned but protesters’ demands have grown
By Emma Graham-Harrison

Carrie Lam is seen on TV in Hong Kong announcing the formal withdrawal of the extradition bill that had provoked months of protests. 

The decision by the Hong Kong leader, Carrie Lam, to withdraw the extradition bill that provoked months of turmoil represents a major and unexpected concession from Beijing, but is certainly too little, and too late, to end the protests.
In June when millions first poured into the streets in peaceful protest, a promise to ditch the law might well have muted the burgeoning popular uprising. 

But Lam is only acting after months of police brutality, thug attacks on protesters, mass arrests, and aggressive threats of security intervention from communist China.

“This is a government which has backed police abuses, threatened to use unlimited emergency powers, banned peaceful assemblies and arrested more than 1,000 protesters,” said Kenneth Chan, a professor at Hong Kong Baptist University and former lawmaker. 

“Having gone through all this, few could thank Carrie Lam today.”
Over the last three months, a movement born out of concerns over one law has morphed into something much broader. 

Demonstrators have drawn up a list of five key demands, including a public inquiry into police violence, amnesty for arrested protesters and democratic reforms to bring universal suffrage.
Many protesters saw Beijing’s concession as meeting only the “easiest and ‘cheapest’” of their five demands, said Lokman Tsui, an assistant professor at the journalism school of the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
“In the last few weeks the bill hasn’t been on most protesters’ minds, actually,” he said. 

“Instead it’s the government’s response to the protests, the way they tried to silence and suppress the protesters – by using teargas, inappropriate levels of force, arresting people for protesting etc – that is at the heart of the ongoing protests.”
The law would have allowed any resident or visitor to Hong Kong to be sent to mainland China to face trial in opaque, politically controlled courts, in effect destroying the legal firewall that underpins Hong Kong’s economy and its political freedoms.
It spurred unprecedented protests because many in the city, including those who normally steered clear of politics, saw it as an existential threat to both their livelihoods and way of life.
The decision to drop it have been sanctioned by Beijing, which is balancing a desire not to look weak, and a fear that concessions will only embolden protesters, with concern over the political and economic toll of the protests.
Hong Kong is deeply embedded in the southern Chinese economy, and is an important portal to international financial markets for the whole country. 

The turmoil has also come as the trade war between China and the US deepens.

Hong Kong protesters vow to stay on the streets despite Carrie Lam concession.

News of Lam’s announcement revived the city’s main Hang Seng index, and demonstrators were quick to capitalise on market enthusiasm for the concession with memes such as one that asked: “Did you know? If you respond to one demand, the Hang Seng index will rise a thousand points. Respond to five demands, the Hang Seng index will rise five thousand points.”
The stakes are getting higher for both authorities and protesters as 1 October approaches, the 70th anniversary of the founding of communist China. 

Lavish national celebrations have been planned to mark the date, and Xi Jinping is unlikely to want them overshadowed by unrest in Hong Kong.
Demonstrators have not been deterred by police violence, mass arrests or threats of greater use of force, and so the decision to withdraw the bill may have been a first attempt at compromise. 

But there are also fears that Beijing may just be paving the way for the use of force, by allowing Chinese authorities to claim they tried and failed to compromise.
“My worry is that what she did is part of Beijing’s blueprint to prepare a heavy crackdown,” said Chan. 

“The state propaganda officials have on numerous occasions argued that the movement ‘is no longer about the law, its subversive and anti-China’.”

China pulls extradition bill, but too little too late, say Hong Kong protesters

By James Pomfret, Clare Jim

HONG KONG -- Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam on Wednesday withdrew an extradition bill that triggered months of often violent protests so the Chinese-ruled city can move forward from a “highly vulnerable and dangerous” place and find solutions.

Her televised announcement came after Reuters reports on Friday and Monday revealing Beijing thwarted an earlier proposal from Lam to withdraw the bill and she had said privately that she would resign if she could.
“Lingering violence is damaging the very foundations of our society, especially the rule of law,” a somber Lam said as she sat wearing a navy blue jacket and pink shirt with her hands folded on a desk.
It was not clear when the recording was made. 

The withdrawal needs the approval of the Legislative Council, which is not expected to oppose Lam.
The bill would have allowed extraditions to mainland China where courts are controlled by the Communist Party. 

Its withdrawal is a key demand of protesters but just one of five. 

The move came after pitched battles across the former British colony of 7 million. 

More than 1,000 protesters were arrested.
Many are furious about vicious police brutality and the number of arrests and want an independent inquiry.
“The government will formally withdraw the bill in order to fully allay public concerns,” Lam said.
“I pledge that the government will seriously follow up the recommendations of the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Council) report. From this month, I and my principal officials will reach out to the community to start a direct dialogue ... we must find ways to address the discontent in society and look for solutions.”
The protests began in March but snowballed in June and have evolved into a push for greater democracy for the city which returned to China in 1997. 

It was not clear if killing the bill would help end the unrest. 

The immediate reaction appeared skeptical.

“FIVE DEMANDS, NOT ONE MISSING”

Lawmakers said the move should have come earlier.
“The damage has been done. The scars and wounds are still bleeding,” said pro-democracy legislator Claudia Mo. 

“She thinks she can use a garden hose to put out a hill fire. That’s not going to be acceptable.”
Many people on street corners after nightfall were shouting: “Five demands, not one missing.”
“We still have four other demands. We hope people won’t forget that,” said a woman speaking for the protest movement who declined to identify herself except by the surname Chan. 

“The mobilization power won’t decrease.”
Riot police fired beanbag guns and used pepper spray on Tuesday to clear demonstrators from outside the Mong Kok police station and in Prince Edward metro station, with one man taken out on a stretcher with an oxygen mask over his face, television footage showed.
The four other demands are: retraction of the word “riot” to describe rallies, release of all demonstrators, an independent inquiry into police brutality and the right for Hong Kong people to choose their own leaders.
“Too little, too late,” Joshua Wong, a leader of pro-democracy protests in 2014 that were the precursor to the current unrest, said on his Facebook page.
In the United States, Republican Senator Marco Rubio, a persistent critic of Beijing’s attempts to undermine Hong Kong’s autonomy, called Lam’s move “welcome but insufficient.”
“The Chinese Communist Party should uphold its commitments to Hong Kong’s autonomy and stop aggravating the situation with threats of violence,” he said in a statement.
U.S. Democratic House speaker Nancy Pelosi called the move long overdue and demanded an end to the use of force against demonstrators. 

Pelosi said she looked forward to the swift advance of bipartisan legislation to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong.
Rubio has co-sponsored a Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act that would require annual certification of Hong Kong’s autonomy to justify special treatment the territory enjoys under U.S. law.
In an op-ed in the Washington Post on Tuesday, Rubio said the United States and the rest of the world needed to make clear to China that aggression toward Hong Kong risked “swift, severe and lasting consequences.”
He said the U.S. administration should make clear it could respond “flexibly and robustly,” including with sanctions against the police force and individuals responsible for abuses. 

The U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

CHINESE WARNINGS
In a voice recording obtained by Reuters, Lam said at a meeting last week that her room to find a political solution to the crisis was “very limited”, as authorities in Beijing now viewed the situation as a matter of national security.
The protests are the biggest popular challenge to Chinese dictator Xi Jinping’s rule since he took power in 2012. 

Beijing denies meddling in Hong Kong’s affairs, yet it warned again on Tuesday that it would act if protests threatened Chinese security and sovereignty.
Pro-Beijing lawmaker Cheung Kwok-kwan said Lam’s announcement was not a compromise to appease those promoting violence but a bid to win over moderates in the protest camp.
“It was likely speaking to the so-called peaceful, rational, non-violent people who were dissatisfied with the government’s response before,” he said.
The chief executive’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the bill’s withdrawal.
Hong Kong returned to China under a “one country, two systems” formula that allowed it to keep freedoms not enjoyed on the mainland, like the freedom to protest and an independent legal system, hence the anger at the extradition bill and perceived creeping influence by Beijing.
Beijing has regularly warned about the impact on Hong Kong’s economy.
Cathay Pacific Airways has been one of the biggest corporate casualties.
China’s aviation regulator demanded Cathay suspend staff from flying over its airspace if they were involved in, or supported, the demonstrations and the airline has laid off at least 20 personnel, including pilots and cabin crew.
On Wednesday it announced the resignation of chairman John Slosar following the departure of CEO Rupert Hogg last month.

Hong Kong - China (1- 0)

Too little, too late: Carrie Lam to withdraw China extradition bill, but will it stop the protests?

BY RAMY INOCENCIO


Hong Kong — The embattled leader of Hong Kong announced Wednesday that she was withdrawing a massively controversial extradition bill that would have given Beijing the power to spirit people away into China's opaque legal system. 

It's the bill that sparked the huge anti-government protests, which are now in their third month. 

But abandoning it at this stage appeared unlikely to quash the unrest.
It was a huge U-turn from Hong Kong chief executive Carrie Lam; the Beijing-appointed leader of the semi-autonomous Chinese territory had previously said there was no room for compromise.
But protesters weren't celebrating the reversal on Wednesday. 

They called it too little, too late. 

Withdrawing the extradition bill is only one of five demands being made by the leaders of the pro-democracy movement.
"I'm glad it's finally done, but it's not sufficient," protest organizer Bonnie Leung told CBS News on Wednesday. 

"Five demands, not one less," she said.
They also want an independent inquiry into police brutality. 

Jarring images of Hong Kong police beating and pepper spraying terrified people in a subway, believed, but not confirmed to be protesters, have galvanized those calls.
The anti-government protests are now in their 14th week, and that may be one of the biggest reasons for Lam's reversal. 

Millions of people have hit the streets since June 9, demanding she revoke the bill.

The protests have become more violent. 

Extreme members of the movement have assaulted government offices in the city with firebombs, and others jammed the roads and rail links to the airport to gain international attention.
October 1 also looms large on the horizon; this year is the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China. 

Every five years there is a massive military celebration in Beijing to mark the occasion.
China's Communist Party doesn't want anything to tarnish that day in the eyes of the world. 

Lam's climb-down could be an attempt to save face before Hong Kong's crisis tarnishes it even more.
Earlier this week, there was an embarrassing leaked audio of Lam admitting she would resign if she could. 

The implication was that she is firmly controlled by Beijing, something many Hong Kongers were already convinced of.Bonnie Leung, vice convenor of the Civil Human Rights Front (CHRF), is seen during an interview in Hong Kong, August 20, 2019.

The day after the audio was leaked to the Reuters news agency, she said she never tendered her resignation, and people came to distrust her even more.
"If an olive branch is given (by the Hong Kong government) then we will discuss openly with them," Leung told CBS News.
The protesters are also demanding that Lam resign.
"It would be good because she's hated. I don't like hating anyone, but she was lying from the (leaked) audio tape" that was leaked to Reuters, Leung said. 

She vowed that even if the government's decision to meet one of the demands calms the protests, she and the other leaders of the movement won't pack it in.
"If people decide it's enough then they will go home. It's the choice of the people," Leung said. 

"The movement may die down a bit. People may calm down, but we will still fight for universal suffrage."
That is another key demand by the protesters; to elect their own leader directly in an election where every citizen gets a vote. 

Right now, that power belongs to Beijing.

The Umbrella Revolution

In Hong Kong, It’s Now a Revolution

What started out as an unexpectedly large demonstration in late April against a piece of legislation—an extradition bill—has become a call for democracy in the territory as well as independence from China and the end of communism on Chinese soil.
by Gordon G. Chang


Defying stern warnings from both the local government and Beijing, people in seven districts in Hong Kong—most notably teachers, airport workers, and civil servants—participated in a general strike Monday, shutting down portions of the territory. For instance, more than a hundred flights were cancelled.
The strike followed weeks of sometimes violent protests in the territory, a semi-autonomous region of the People’s Republic of China. 

Youthful demonstrators over the weekend surrounded and attacked police stations, and enraged residents drove riot police from their neighborhoods.
Roving protesters, dressed for urban combat, created a series of confrontations across the territory, even closing the main tunnel linking Hong Kong Island with the rest of the territory. 

A beleaguered police force, demoralized and fatigued, was unable to keep up with the mobile bands of radicalized youth.

Some of the protest messages were impossible to miss. 

In Wanchai’s Golden Bauhinia Square, a magnet for tourists from other parts of China, kids spray-painted a statue with provocative statements such as “The Heavens will destroy the Communist Party” and “Liberate Hong Kong.”
In Hong Kong, revolution is in the air. 

What started out as an unexpectedly large demonstration in late April against a piece of legislation—an extradition bill—has become a call for democracy in the territory as well as independence from China and the end of communism on Chinese soil.
Almost nobody thinks any of these things can happen, but they forget that Chinese rebellions and revolutions often start at the periphery and then work their way to the center. 

The Qing dynasty of the Manchus, the last imperial reign, unraveled from the edges, as did others.
Hong Kong, perched on the edge of the Asian continent far from the center of communist power in Beijing, may be where the end of Chinese communism begins.

How could the mighty Communist Party of China fall?
Xi Jinping, the Chinese ruler, knows that very few in the rest of China, the “mainland” as it is called, sympathize with the Hong Kong protestors, especially because they challenge “China,” as the party likes to call itself. 

Yet the demonstrators in Hong Kong have succeeded at pushing their government around, almost at will, forcing Carrie Lam, the chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, to “suspend” consideration of the extradition legislation.
And that is why Xi must be concerned. 

Mainland residents have grievances of their own, especially now that the economy is crumbling fast, and might become inspired to treat their own leaders roughly.
Hong Kong protestors, worryingly for Xi, seemed determined to spread their provocative message. Recently, they have been targeting mainland tourists to Hong Kong, seeking to inform them of their grievances. 

Demonstrators have, for instance, gathered in places where Chinese visitors congregate, including a rail station, and have used the AirDrop app to spread protest posters to mainlanders.
Perhaps in response, Beijing late last month stopped trying to prevent those “inside the Great Firewall” from knowing about the Hong Kong disturbances and instead attempted to tar the protestors by publicizing their violent acts.

Are mainlanders encouraged by the Hong Kong “riots,” as Beijing calls them? 

In the first week of July, up to ten thousand residents of Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province, took to the streets for days to protest a proposed waste-incineration plant.
The mass demonstration there did not spread, as other protests in China have in the past, but in the future cascading disturbances could overwhelm an already troubled political system. 

As Arthur Waldron of the University of Pennsylvania told the National Interest, “the disintegration of the People’s Republic of China is now under way.”
Xi might be able to end, or at least tamp down, the Hong Kong protests by forcing Lam to capitulate—formally “withdrawing” the extradition bill from consideration and resigning—but he is unlikely to do that. 

He does not want anyone, especially mainlanders, to think they are also able to overpower their leaders.
In an especially tone-deaf press conference Monday, Lam, standing next to eight grim-faced ministers, made no further concessions, either symbolic or substantive, as she struck all the wrong notes if she was trying to calm the situation in her embattled city. 

Her stern and sometimes ominous words—Lam warned the territory was on the “path of no return”—seemed aimed at an audience of one: Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping.
Xi, it appears, will keep Lam in power. 

Her resignation, demanded by many, would undoubtedly trigger calls for universal suffrage for the election of a successor. 

Lam was “elected” in 2017 by the Election Committee, a body of only twelve hundred members in a city of more than seven million. 

Due to various mechanisms, the resulting “small-circle election” effectively gives Beijing a decisive voice in choosing the chief executive.
The demand for an all-inclusive electorate in fact started seventy-nine days of wide-scale protests in 2014, the “Occupy Central” demonstrations.
That protest, sometimes called the “Umbrella Revolution,” did not look like a revolution—sustained action to change the form of government—but today’s protests are starting to do so. 

Popular attitudes have visibly hardened this year as Hong Kong residents have taken the view that this is, as they say, the “last stand” for their society. 

There are traditional pro-Beijing elements in the city, such as the triads and triad-like organizations, but few in the Hong Kong mainstream now trust China. 

In the middle of June, one pro-democracy march drew an estimated two million people.
At the end of that month, Ho-Fung Hung of Johns Hopkins University noted that the authorities then thought they could outlast the protestors but he disagreed with their assessment, believing the demonstrations could last until September, the fifth anniversary of the Umbrella movement, or even to October 1, when Beijing plans to celebrate the seventieth anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic.
Now, Hung looks prescient. 

There is no end to the demonstrations, now in their ninth-straight week, in sight.
Sustainability is the key for the protestors if they want to win freedom from China. 

“They keep saying ‘be like water,’” Michael Yon, the American war correspondent and author, told the National Interest over the weekend, noting young protestors are modeling themselves after martial arts legend Bruce Lee.

“I keep telling them be like Poland. Never quit and you can actually be free. Maybe. But never quit.”
Yon, now reporting from the streets in Hong Kong, is on to something. 

Hong Kong people may be able to inspire just enough disgruntled mainlanders to shake their regime to the ground. 

If one thing is evident after months of protests, the youthful pro-democracy demonstrators are determined, as are millions of residents of the territory.
In a contest where neither side will concede, anything can happen. 

Chinese regimes, let us remember, fray at the edges and then sometimes fall apart. 

It could happen this time as well.

Hong Kong’s Muzzled Generation Cries Out

How China Silenced a Movement for Democracy—Until It Couldn’t Anymore
By Suzanne Sataline
Protesters demonstrate against the extradition bill in July 2019
As cars idled bumper to bumper on one of Hong Kong’s busiest highways, a gaggle of young people clad in black darted into traffic. 

Cars swerved. Buses braked. 

Hundreds, then thousands, of teens and 20-somethings flooded the streets, their yellow construction helmets bobbing past red Toyota taxis. 

Like nimble spiders, a few dozen men used plastic ties to knit metal stanchions into road barriers. 

On nearby roads, other crews did the same. 

In roughly 20 minutes, demonstrators had choked off Hong Kong’s Legislative Council, the city’s quasi-parliament, and ignited one of the largest protests since Britain returned this former colony to China in 1997.
On June 12, lawmakers were poised to debate a bill that would have allowed Hong Kong to extradite suspected criminals to mainland China. 

The city’s Beijing-backed chief executive, Carrie Lam, said the law would prevent fugitives from taking refuge in the territory. 

Her critics feared it would erode Hong Kong’s autonomy, enabling greater interference from Beijing. Under the draft version of the bill, virtually anyone in Hong Kong—business owners, religious figures, members of the political opposition—could be transferred to the People’s Republic, where they would face an opaque and politicized legal system notoriously heedless of due process. 

Chinese prosecutors could easily dredge up past infractions or craft new charges to ensnare businesspeople or dissidents.
For months, opposition to the bill had mounted. 

Its potential sweep galvanized lawyers, students, civil rights groups, and even businesses and some foreign governments. 

In April, an estimated 130,000 people marched against the draft law. 

By early June, when a vote seemed imminent, protest organizers claimed that more than a million people had mobilized. 

But June 12 was a turning point. 

In an afternoon that shocked the city, thousands of police officers in black riot helmets fired tear gas, rubber bullets, and bean bag rounds into the crowd. 

More than 80 people reported injuries; many of those who sought medical care were arrested at hospitals.
The brutal display hardened public opinion against Lam, eventually pushing her to offer a vaguely worded apology and indefinitely suspend the law. 

The following day, on June 16, an estimated two million protesters poured into the streets to demand that Lam permanently withdraw the bill. 

It was a stunning rebuke of Beijing and its acolytes in Hong Kong, but Lam and her backers stood firm. 

Although she promised not to reintroduce the bill until certain conflicts and concerns are addressed, she refused to kill it permanently.
Protests have continued since then, most recently on July 1, when thousands of demonstrators breached the legislature, smashing windows and destroying part of the building’s façade. 

At the forefront are angry and frightened young people, who in recent years have weathered an assault on their civil and political rights. 

For them, the extradition bill has become a symbol, not just of Beijing’s creeping authoritarianism but of a sustained, years-long campaign to silence their generation. 

“We know if the bill passed, that means our generation and the next generation will be affected,” said Simon, a 22-year-old undergraduate who joined hundreds of sweaty protesters outside the Legislative Council on June 12. 

His friend Alex, a recent graduate of Polytechnic University, added later by text: “The extradition bill is a war against the whole young generation.”

A WAR ON THE YOUTH
Hong Kong dangles off the southern coast of the world’s largest and mightiest one-party state. Through an arrangement known as “one country, two systems,” brokered between Britain and China as part of the territory’s transfer in 1997, Hong Kong is supposed to manage most of its internal affairs until 2047. 

The city has never been a democracy, but its mini-constitution enshrines expansive civil liberties—to congregate and publish, to seek office and speak out—that residents celebrate with zeal. 

In 2003, massive protests thwarted a national security law that would have introduced heavy penalties for subversion, treason, and sedition. 

Then in 2012, students boycotted classes to protest a so-called “patriotic and moral curriculum,” which critics said whitewashed the history of the Chinese Communist Party. 

The plan was eventually shelved. 

And every year on July 1, the anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover to China, residents celebrate their right to complain and seek change by marching for all manner of causes and concerns—political, social, and environmental. 

The day is a cacophonous carnival of objections and pleas, a din heard rarely in Asia and nowhere else in China.
Still, Beijing enjoys outsized influence in Hong Kong. 

The majority of Legislative Council members side with the authoritarian state, and while the city’s chief executive is formally selected through a complex electoral college, informally, he or she is handpicked by Beijing. 

Over the years, China has repeatedly rebuffed Hong Kongers’ requests for universal suffrage and for an end to mainland meddling, most recently in 2014. 

That September, what started as a brief sit-in to demand full suffrage blossomed into a vast street occupation led by university students. 

By some estimates, the Umbrella Movement, so named for the protesters’ preferred defense against police pepper spray, drew hundreds of thousands of people. 

But the Hong Kong and Beijing governments conceded nothing.
Since then, Beijing and its allies in Hong Kong have waged an effective campaign to intimidate young protest leaders. 

Young people have been denied their rights to operate political parties and seek elective office. 

They have been targeted in political prosecutions, hounded by pro-Beijing media, and subjected to online hacks and other harassment. 

As a result, the number of young people who participated in politics, or even civic causes, dwindled in 2017 and 2018.
Many of those who remained engaged in politics grew more radicalized as a result. 

Out of the failed 2014 protests a new pro-democracy movement was born. 

Some of its followers called for complete independence from China and greater pride in Hong Kong’s culture and history. 

Many also denigrated mainland Chinese visitors and recent Hong Kong transplants who spoke Mandarin, giving the movement a populist tinge. 

Mainland officials and newspapers denounced the movement’s leaders as secessionists and accused them of committing treason.
Hong Kong’s government has worked hard to keep the independence idea out of the Legislative Council, where the public chooses half of the members. 

In 2016, the election bureau barred several young candidates from seeking office because of their pro-independence views. 

One was Edward Leung, a 25-year-old rising star who had won more than 66,000 votes in a previous by-election, making him the favorite in the general election. 

Like all prospective candidates that year, Leung was required to sign an official form—never before required—that called Hong Kong an “inalienable part of the People’s Republic of China.” 

The election officer doubted Leung’s sincerity, citing his posts on Facebook promoting self-rule, and disqualified him. 

Two other candidates from another pro-independence party, Baggio Leung and Yau Wei-ching, were permitted to run. 

But after they insulted China during the swearing-in ceremony, a judge barred them from taking their seats.
As the independence movement grew, and more young people identified themselves as Hong Kongers rather than Chinese, according to polls taken by the University of Hong Kong’s Public Opinion Program, Beijing took note. 

On a visit to Hong Kong on July 1, 2017, marking the 20th anniversary of the handover, Xi Jinping ordered the city to hew to the nation’s interests. 

“Any attempt to endanger China’s sovereignty and security, challenge the power of the central government … or use Hong Kong to carry out infiltration and sabotage activities against the mainland is an act that crosses the red line, and is absolutely impermissible,” he said.
Not long after, a Hong Kong judge expelled four more pro-democracy lawmakers from office on the pretense that the oaths they had sworn were insincere. 

In almost every case, the disqualified candidates were under 40. 

All had been harsh critics of Beijing. 

The following year, the government for the first time banned a political group, the Hong Kong National Party, whose central tenet was to work toward Hong Kong’s independence.
The campaign against young political activists continued in the courts. 

Since 2016, judges have convicted dozens of young people for protesting, rioting, and causing disorder. 

Justices on the Court of Final Appeals, Hong Kong’s highest court, ruled that any protest that results in injuries would not be considered an act of civil disobedience but, rather, a violent gathering whose organizers could be subject to prosecution. 

Edward Leung, the thwarted legislative nominee, was convicted in 2018 of rioting and hitting a police officer. 

He was sentenced to six years in a maximum-security prison. 

What seemed like a routine prosecution to discourage street brawls had morphed into a war on the next generation of leaders.

BACK TO THE STREETS
The pall of those depressing summers of 2017 and 2018 lasted well into this year. 

Most young people stopped attending large civic events. 

The student unions at several universities, long catalysts for local and anti-Beijing-related activism, couldn’t form cabinets because so few people were willing to lead. 

Many activists involved in previous campaigns worried that they might be arrested; some chose to enroll in graduate school overseas. 

Two of Leung’s party colleagues were granted refugee status in Germany, likely the first time that Hong Kong residents had ever been granted protection from their own government.
In this fragile, feeble moment for the pro-democracy movement, Lam pushed the rendition bill. 

A quick, clean vote of approval would signal to Xi that she had Hong Kong under control. 

When the business sector objected to the bill’s lack of human rights guarantees and long list of offenses, Lam tweaked the language and promised that only people accused of serious crimes would be extradited. 

Passage looked all but certain.
Then something unexpected happened. 

After a group of lawyers launched a campaign to delay the bill, the Internet suddenly blossomed with hundreds of online petitions. 

Everyone from alumni associations to mothers’ groups demanded that the bill be stopped. 

All at once, young people were engaged again. 

Political parties led by 20-somethings posted graphics explaining why the extradition law could be dangerous. 

Activists shared details about marches, tips on protective gear, and even hand gestures for communicating during standoffs with police. 

Leung’s former party, Hong Kong Indigenous, published an online booklet with tips in case of arrest.
Once the protests began in April, Hong Kong police seemed to focus primarily on stopping the city’s youngest strikers. 

After a mass march on June 9, officers singled out young people to search them for masks, goggles, and knives. 

The night before the June 12 protest at the legislature, police charged the administrator of a Telegram chat group with 20,000 members with conspiracy to cause a public nuisance. 

“I never thought that just speaking on the internet, just sharing information, could be regarded as a speech crime,” the channel’s 22-year-old administrator, Ivan Ip, told The New York Times.
Democracy advocates in Hong Kong have long despised the Beijing government. 

But Lam and her administration have ensured that many residents now hate the city government as well. 

Since her halfhearted apology, young people have coalesced around four key demands: formally withdraw the extradition bill; retract the “riot” designation of the June 12 protest, which opened the door to more serious criminal prosecutions; release and drop all charges against those who were arrested; and establish an independent inquiry to probe the excessive force by police on June 12. 

A fifth demand is that Lam step down.
So far, all five demands remain unmet. 

While protesters have done their best to keep the pressure on the government, many quietly admit that they are grasping for ways to sustain the momentum. 

Without a clear leader, and with crowds destined to shrink, many worry that this protest movement could fizzle like many previous ones. 

The young people who continue to stage sudden, short-term occupations of government buildings are taking a significant risk. 

The fewer the protesters are in number, the more vulnerable they are to criminal prosecution. 

And yet the most energized among them don’t plan to back down. 

“Many of us are thinking that continuing the protest in Hong Kong will create a certain level of pressure on the Chinese government,” said Simon, the undergraduate. 

“If you’re not going to respond to us, we’ll try to stop the government from working.”

Hong Kong protesters are fighting for their freedom -- They deserve US support

By Andy Puzder 

While talks Saturday between Trump and Chinese dictator Xi Jinping at the G20 summit in Japan focused on resolving trade disputes, there is another major issue dividing our two countries: the fight for freedom by the people of Hong Kong.
We don’t know what, if anything, Trump and Xi said about Hong Kong. 

But the fate of the former British colony and the rights of its citizens are important and should be of concern to Americans and free people everywhere.
Protesters claim nearly 2 million people have joined their ranks to stage demonstrations and marches against a controversial extradition bill, while Hong Kong police estimated peak turnout of protesters was 338,000.
The protests have being going on for weeks, as the people of Hong Kong have tried desperately to stop their semi-autonomous democratic government from succumbing to Beijing’s pressure and passing deeply unpopular extradition legislation.
The extradition bill would nullify the civil liberties and criminal justice protections that Hong Kongers enjoy. 

It could lead to the end of Hong Kong’s autonomy from mainland China, which is ruled by the heavy hand of the Communist Party.
In addition to demonstrating outside the Hong Kong consulates of all the G20 powers, the anti-extradition protesters were on the ground in Osaka Japan during the summit, makingthe issue of Hong Kong’s fate impossible to ignore.
Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protesters were right to raise their grievances at the summit that was focused on trade and economics. Trade, geopolitics and human rights are deeply interrelated. 

Hong Kong punches well above it weight both economically and with respect to freedom.
The Heritage Foundation’s 2019 Index of Economic Freedom ranks Hong Kong’s capitalist economy as the freest in the world. 

China’s essentially state-run economy, operating under a Communist dictatorship, ranks a dismal No. 100 on the freedom index.
Demonstrating the benefits of economic freedom, the gross domestic product per person in Hong Kong last year was $49,000 – while mainland China lagged far behind at only $10,000.
Hong Kong is a bastion of freedom and prosperity on the doorstep of a totalitarian giant, standing as a prominent example of what economic freedom can do.
If Chinese leaders were truly interested in acting in the best interests of their people and stimulating economic growth and prosperity they would make China more like Hong Kong.

Instead, they want to bring their iron-fisted rule to Hong Kong and make it more like the rest of China.
Not surprisingly, Beijing used its veto power to keep any discussion of the Hong Kong protests off the G20 summit agenda.
“We will not allow the G20 to discuss the Hong Kong issue,” China’s assistant minister of foreign affairs told reporters Monday. 

That’s unfortunate. 

It’s a discussion China will find difficult to avoid.
As things stand, the special autonomy Hong Kong enjoys makes it exempt from the counter-tariffs that Trump has imposed on the Chinese mainland, as well as export restrictions limiting advanced technology that China can buy from the U.S.
This arrangement benefits everyone. 

Hong Kong serves as a gateway between the West and China, where companies from both systems can trade and collaborate. 

It’s a relationship and a status well worth protecting from totalitarian excesses.
The U.S. Congress is considering bipartisan legislation titled the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 that would use trade as leverage to exert pressure on the Chinese government to respect Hong Kong’s autonomy, democracy, and traditions of law and justice.
One of the stated purposes of the legislation is “to ensure that all residents of Hong Kong are afforded freedom from arbitrary or unlawful arrest, detention, or imprisonment.”
Seems pretty reasonable.
The U.S. legislation would require China to respect Hong Kong’s autonomy to preserve the favorable trading status Hong Kong has with America. Congress should pass it expeditiously.
Economic freedom permeates every facet of world power and that is why the eyes of the world were on Trump and Xi in Osaka.
Trump is making far more progress on the trade front that his critics imagined he could. 

Hopefully, protecting those in Hong Kong fighting for their liberty will be a part of whatever trade deal Trump ultimately achieves.

‘We must protect and stand up for our youth’: Thousands in Australia protest against Hong Kong extradition law

Thousands of people across Australia took to the streets last Sunday to protest against Hong Kong’s controversial extradition law.

By Tim Lam

Hundreds gather outside the State Library of Victoria to call for the withdrawal of the Extradition Law. 

Rallies were held in all six Australian states, with protests in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Hobart, Perth and Adelaide. 

A demonstration was also held at the national capital in Canberra.
In Melbourne, home to one of Australia’s largest Hong Kong communities, hundreds gathered outside the State Library of Victoria to express solidarity with Hong Kong protesters.
The demonstrators included a large contingent of Hong Kong and Taiwanese students, along with members of the Australian Tibetan community and former Umbrella Movement protesters.

Hundreds gather outside the State Library of Victoria to call for the withdrawal of the Extradition Law. 

The rally began with a minute’s silence for an extradition law protester who died on Saturday evening after falling from a mall in Admiralty.
Flowers and candles were also placed at a memorial on the steps of the State Library of Victoria.
Chanting “Say No to China Extradition”, the protesters called on Hong Kong chief executive Carrie Lam to withdraw the extradition law, condemn and investigate police violence and retract the classification of the June 12 protests as a “riot”.

Hundreds gather outside the State Library of Victoria to call for the withdrawal of the Extradition Law. 

Jane Poon, from Australia-Hong Kong Link, was one of the event organisers who addressed the crowd.
“How can Carrie Lam, as a mother, use tear gas, rubber bullets and bean bag rounds to ‘reprimand’ her children?” Poon said.
“How can Stephen Lo send his police to use their batons to strike our youth?

Jane Poon addresses the crowd outside the State Library of Victoria. 

“We must protect and stand up for our youth. Carrie Lam and Stephen Lo still June 12 a riot – so the young people can still be arrested and jailed.”
Hannah, originally from Hong Kong, asked people who care about human rights to pray for Hong Kong.
“I am a Hong Kong person and I’m also a Christian. Seeing so many Christians peacefully singing Sing Hallelujah to the Lord in front of the police made me very emotional,” she said.
“God is watching what’s happening in Hong Kong right now.”

Protesters hold up signs showing their opposition to the Extradition Law.
A number of people from mainland China also attended the Melbourne protest.
A man who identified himself as Ming said he joined the rally to show his support for the Hong Kong protests.
“A lot of people in China don’t know what’s going on as they just follow the mainstream media report from the government’s side,” he said.
“I feel very sad about what’s happening to the Hong Kongers. Their freedom becomes more and more limited.”

Protesters hold up signs showing their opposition to the Extradition Law. 
“But the younger generation of Hong Kongers haven’t been brainwashed. So many people have come out and I think that’s the future of Hong Kong.”
Earlier in the day, Hong Kong international students from Melbourne universities organised a silent protest in the heart of Melbourne’s central business district.
“Many of the young people protesting in Hong Kong right now are our friends,” one of the protesters said.
“We are in the exam period here in Australia, and we feel so powerless.”

Protesters hold up signs showing their opposition to the Extradition Law. 

“But even though we are in Melbourne and not Hong Kong, we can still do something.”
Protesters also expressed disappointment at the response of Hong Kong born-Australian MP (a member of Parliament) Gladys Liu to the extradition law.
Last month, Liu became the first Chinese woman elected to the Australian parliament.
In an interview with Australian news channel SBS, Liu said she “hasn’t really looked into the details of the legislation”.

Candles and flowers are placed on the steps of the State Library of Victoria in memory of an anti-extradition law protester who died last Saturday. 

This was the second time in two weeks that public demonstrations against the extradition law were held in Australia.
Previously, protests in five Australian cities attracted an estimated 5,000 people.

In Hong Kong, the Freedom to Publish Is Under Attack

If the extradition law is eventually forced through the Hong Kong legislature, censorship of books will become commonplace in what has long been a bastion of publishing freedom.
BY JAMES TAGER
A general view shows Harcourt Road after it was cleared in Hong Kong early on June 22 after protests on June 21. 

For most of the world’s publishers, it would be very unusual for editors to take into account a country’s extradition laws before greenlighting a book. 

And yet, publishers and booksellers based in Hong Kong may well have to do so, due to a proposed new extradition policy that would have painful and chilling effects on the climate for free expression, press freedom, and the freedom to publish in the city.
Today, the future of the policy, which would allow those arrested in Hong Kong to be extradited to mainland China, stands on a knife’s edge: The bill has been so unpopular that it has been the target of a series of historically massive demonstrations, with hundreds of thousands of protesters taking to the streets. 

On June 15, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam announced that the bill was indefinitely suspended, but she has so far refused to withdraw it entirely. 

The next few days may determine whether this bill lurches forward or dies entirely as protesters gear up for another round of demonstrations.
Publishers across the globe should be paying very close attention, as their rights are among those at stake. 

If passed, such a law could force publishers with a presence in Hong Kong to choose between risking the safety of their staff or submitting to China’s harsh political censorship system under which criminal charges can lead to prison.
If passed, such a law could force publishers with a presence in Hong Kong to choose between risking the safety of their staff or submitting to China’s harsh political censorship system under which criminal charges can lead to prison.
Although Hong Kong is Chinese territory, it has a separate legal system from the rest of China, as a consequence of the 1997 handover from British control. 

This legal distinction means Hong Kong cannot at the moment turn over criminal suspects to China without a formalized extradition agreement between the two—which, to this day, China and Hong Kong do not have.
This may sound insignificant, but it is actually critical to guaranteeing the rights of Hong Kong’s people. 

In Hong Kong, the judiciary is independent from authorities, and fair trial rights are generally guaranteed. 

In mainland China—whose courts have a conviction rate of over 99 percent—the picture is dramatically different: Torture and coerced confessions are systemic, closed-door show trials are not uncommon, and the courts follow the mandate of Chinese Communist Party officials. 

The Chinese wield the courts as a weapon against political dissidents, criminalizing vast categories of political expression.
This is why large segments of Hong Kong society have reacted with such alarm to the news that Hong Kong’s legislature was attempting to ram through a sweeping legal change—one that would grant broad new powers to Hong Kong’s chief executive to authorize the extradition of any person in Hong Kong on the so-called request of mainland authorities.
Over the past couple weeks, Hong Kongers have protested in massive numbers: Organizers have estimated that a demonstration on June 16 saw almost 2 million demonstrators taking to the streets— in a city of less than 8 million people. 

The artistic community has also responded, with art galleries closing their doors in an act of protest. 

Business leaders have also expressed concerns, causing a dip in the Hong Kong stock market, and earlier this month 3,000 lawyers participated in a rare silent protestthrough the city streets.
International publishers should similarly be deeply concerned: If the extradition bill passes, no publisher in Hong Kong will be free from the threat of criminal charges.

The amendments apply to foreigners as well as citizens, meaning that anyone within—or even passing through—Hong Kong’s borders would be a potential target for extradition to the mainland. International publishers and booksellers with a presence in Hong Kong are able to produce and sell books there that would never be published in the mainland for reasons of censorship, and some Hong Kong-sold books eventually end up back in mainland China through individuals who buy them while traveling for work or on vacation. 

This is certainly enough for mainland authorities to view this entire sector with a prosecutorial—and persecutory—eye.
Hong Kong would rubber-stamp any extradition request from the mainland. 

Beijing handpicks nominees for the position of Hong Kong’s chief executive. 

It’s naive to think that the chief executive, Lam, would reject an extradition request from the same authorities who picked her for the job. 

And the decision to extradite would essentially be hers alone. 

The Hong Kong legislature—with a large majority of pro-Beijing stalwarts sitting alongside a nonetheless sizable minority of pro-democracy delegates—would have no authority to scrutinize extradition requests.
Similarly, Hong Kong courts would have little say in the matter: A Hong Kong judge would be required to approve extradition as long as there was sufficient prima-facie evidence to result in an indictment. 

This is a low standard of proof, compared to the standard for a criminal conviction. 

And while the courts can reject an extradition request if they find it is politically motivated, the burden is on suspects to prove they are being politically targeted. 

In other words, Hong Kong courts would essentially be taking mainland authorities at their word that they filed an actionable extradition request in good faith.
But authorities in mainland China have a history of bad faith in this regard, and several of the most troubling examples involve the publishing world. 

In the past few years alone, Chinese state agents have abducted several Hong Kong-based booksellers or publishers, putting them through a Kafkaesque legal process. 

In 2014, a Shenzhen court sentenced the Hong Kong publisher Yiu Man-tin to 10 years in prison for “smuggling ordinary goods,” after he planned to publish a book critical of Chinese dictator Xi Jinping.
The following year, Chinese agents abducted five Hong Kong booksellers, forcing them to appear on state television to give coerced confessions regarding running an “illegal business” by selling books to mainland China. 

This case, known as the Causeway Bay Books disappearances, is still not resolved: More than three years later, one of the booksellers—the Swedish citizen Gui Minhai — is still detained incommunicado in China as his health worsens.
In fact, mainland authorities have no problem making up spurious legal claims to punish independent voices in the Hong Kong publishing world. 

After Gui was kidnapped from his vacation home in Thailand in October 2015 by Chinese agents, mainland authorities claimed that he had voluntarily returned to China to resolve a decade-old hit-and-run charge against him.
While Hong Kong’s government has claimed that the proposed bill would not enable extradition for political crimes or for various types of commercial crimes, experts have pointed out that this would not stop mainland authorities from using elastically defined charges—like fraud—as a pretext for political censorship. 

After all, if Chinese state agents are willing to egregiously break international law through kidnapping publishers, it is hard to believe they will act with restraint after given this powerful new legal tool.
Protesters have begun demanding that the Hong Kong government withdraw the bill entirely, that Lam resign, and that the government drop charges against those who have been arrested. 

Additional demonstrations are already planned, meaning that the future of this bill could be decided within the next few weeks.
Given the incredible outpouring of protest against this bill, it would be easy to conclude that the threat has already passed. 

After all, Lam has already announced the bill’s suspension. 

But a suspended bill can always arise again. 

Lam has pointedly refused to commit to scrapping the bill entirely, saying she would only proceed with it if the “fears and anxieties” of Hong Kongers could be “adequately addressed.” 

That leaves a lot of wiggle room for the government to propose a new version of this bill down the road, once Lam or top officials in Beijing decide that the people are no longer so anxious.
Publishers and booksellers with staff in Hong Kong (or visiting the city) should be very worried. Hong Kong has traditionally been a bastion of media freedom and uncensored publishing in Asia—accessible to the Chinese market but removed from China’s censorship strictures and its criminal penalties for those who speak truth to power.
The extradition bill and future legislation like it would threaten this freedom, and publishers around the world would need to begin asking themselves, “If I publish this book in Hong Kong, is there a chance that I or a colleague could face criminal charges in a Chinese court?” 

The result will be self-censorship driven by fear as Hong Kong is further stripped of the protections that make it a safe harbor for readers and booksellers alike.

Hong Kong protesters refuse to back down over extradition bill

Black-clad protesters flood streets of Hong Kong

By Jessie Pang, Clare Jim


HONG KONG -- Thousands of black-clad protesters blocked roads and surrounded police headquarters in Hong Kong on Friday in the latest demonstrations over an extradition bill that has triggered violent protests and plunged the Chinese-ruled city into crisis.
Groups of mostly students wearing hard hats, goggles and face masks set up roadblocks and trapped vehicles in a generally peaceful protest to demand that leader Carrie Lam, who promoted and then postponed the bill, scrap it altogether.
“Having people here is giving pressure to the government that we don’t agree with your extradition plans,” said student Edison Ng, who was protesting in sweltering heat of about 32 degrees Celsius (90°F).
“It is not clear how long we will stay... To go or not to go, (the) people will decide,” he added.
The protests, which pose the greatest popular challenge to Chinese dictator Xi Jinping since he took power in 2012, once again forced the temporary closure of Hong Kong government offices over security concerns.
Roads that would normally be jammed with traffic near the heart of the former British colony were empty, with demonstrators reinforcing roadblocks with metal barriers.
“Never surrender,” echoed through the streets as the protesters chanted near police headquarters and called on police chief Stephen Lo to step down.

People protest outside police headquarters, demanding Hong Kong’s leaders to step down and withdraw the extradition bill, in Hong Kong, China June 21, 2019. 

Police warned activists through loud hailers not to charge.
Hundreds remained outside government buildings on Friday night, with the majority sitting peacefully and spraying each other with water to keep cool. 

Nearby, a large group sang “Sing Hallelujah to the Lord”, which has emerged as the unlikely anthem of the protests.
Hong Kong returned to Chinese rule in 1997, since when it has been governed under a “one country, two systems” formula that allows freedoms not enjoyed in mainland China, including a much-cherished independent judiciary.
Millions of people, fearing a further erosion of those freedoms, have clogged the streets of the Asian financial center this month to rally against the bill, which would allow people to be extradited to the mainland to face trial in courts controlled by the Communist Party.
It triggered the most violent protests in decades when police fired rubber bullets and tear gas to disperse the crowds. 

Beijing’s squeeze sparked pro-democracy protests in 2014 that paralyzed parts of the city for 79 days.
Many accuse China of obstructing democratic reforms, interfering with elections and of being behind the disappearance of five Hong Kong-based booksellers, starting in 2015, who specialized in works critical of Chinese leaders.
Friday’s marchers demanded that the government drop all charges against those arrested in last week’s clashes, charge police with what they describe as violent action and stop referring to the protests as a riot.
A small group of demonstrators hurled eggs at police outside the headquarters to protest against police violence. 

Amnesty International in a statement on Friday that evidence of unlawful use of force by police during the June 12 protest was “irrefutable”.

Opponents of the extradition bill fear the law could put them at the mercy of the mainland Chinese justice system which is plagued by torture, forced confessions and arbitrary detentions.
The turmoil has also raised questions over Lam’s ability to govern, two years after she was selected and pledged to “unite and move forward”.
Justice Secretary Teresa Cheng became the latest government minister to apologize over the bill.
“Regarding the controversies and disputes in society arising from the strife in the past few months, being a team member of the government, I offer my sincere apology to all people of Hong Kong,” Cheng wrote in her blog.
“We promise to adopt a most sincere and humble attitude to accept criticisms and make improvements in serving the public.”
While Lam admitted shortcomings over the bill and said she had heard the people “loud and clear”, she has rejected repeated calls to step down.
Concerns over the bill spread quickly, from democratic and human rights groups to the wider Hong Kong community, including pro-establishment business figures, some usually loath to contradict the government. 

Some Hong Kong tycoons have started moving personal wealth offshore.
Hong Kong’s Bar Association said in a statement that it was asking the government to withdraw the extradition bill and make a commitment that any legislation would not proceed without having a full and open consultation.
Protesters had gathered early on Friday outside government offices before marching toward police headquarters. 

One activist read a letter of support from a Taiwan student.
“Brave HKers, perhaps when faced with adversity, we are all fragile and small, but please do not give up defending everything that you love,” the protester read through a loud hailer to applause.
Beijing has never renounced the use of force to take over self-ruled Taiwan, which it regards as a recalcitrant, breakaway province. 

Many have waved Taiwan flags at recent demonstrations in Hong Kong, images certain to rile authorities in Beijing.
Taiwan, overwhelmingly opposed to a “one country, two systems” formula for itself, has voiced support for Hong Kong.

The people of Hong Kong need more than an end to the extradition bill – we want genuine democracy

This mass mobilisation is about far more than simply one law. The democratisation of Hong Kong could have potentially huge ramifications for democracy in China – and thus for global politics.

By Joshua Wong and Alex Chow

On 4 June, a few days before 2 million people took to the streets against Hong Kong’s extradition law amendment, around 180,000 citizens attended a vigil in the city’s Victoria Park.
Held to commemorate the 1989 Tiananmen massacre – a bloody command made by Chinese Communist Party leaders to disperse the crowds and nullify the call for a democratic China – the event still attracts old and young, both local people and those from overseas, even after three decades.
The congregation not only marks people’s relentless pursuit of democracy and freedom but also symbolises Hong Kong’s standing as a free city, albeit one whose status is potentially waning, and whose sovereignty was handed over from Britain to China in 1997 under the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed in 1984.
Many western countries resumed trade with China soon after the massacre, hoping to facilitate the country’s political transformation through economic partnership. 

People realised this strategy had failed to deliver when the new generation of Chinese Communist Party leaders took a more unwavering stance in protecting their regime.
And so when the extradition bill was proposed in Hong Kong only a matter of weeks ago, the rule of law, the core value that distinguishes Hong Kong from China, was seen clearly as a threat to its autonomy. 

For the people of Hong Kong, this signalled the collapse of the political promises laid out in the 1980s to assure local residents and overseas investors of Hong Kong’s economic prosperity after the CCP assumed sovereignty of Hong Kong.





In response to the crumbling of the one country, two systems principle, 2 million people took to the streets; a diversified mass across political camps, class spectrums and age groups, together pushing back against the red line redrawn by the authority. 

Even after Carrie Lam, the chief executive, announced the suspension of the bill, many local residents were not content with the result and are now asking for more action to agitate for greater fundamental change.
Protesters believe the goals of the mass mobilisations are still incomplete. 

They have not forced the chief executive to step down; haven’t yet gained immunity from political prosecution; nor forced the authorities to relabel their actions as “protests” rather than “riots”; and are still pressuring the executive into holding the police to account for the use of 150 tear gas canisters, numerous rounds of rubber bullets, and 20 beanbag shots, causing injury to protesters.
Protesters have now lost all faith in the government; they are rejecting its capacity to rule and spying political manoeuvring in all of its proposals. 

There is declining confidence in the government, and the police brutality and authoritarian governance used to quash the protests are two sides of the same coin.
Which brings us back to democratic movements of recent years. 

The CCP government smashed the possibility of democratic reform five years ago, triggering the Umbrella Movement, a nearly three-month-long occupation of the streets. 

Although many young people were politicised by it, the momentum dipped when the ruling regime forced the semi-independent court to disqualify six newly elected pro-self-determination and pro-independence lawmakers, and imprisoned many frontline activists, including ourselves. 

The fear of the extradition law amendment is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the grievances of the people of Hong Kong.
Citizens are also looking for economic alternatives, hoping to go beyond the functional city defined by the British government and the CCP regime. 

Once upon a time, the people of Hong Kong were proud of creating a robust, export-oriented industrial city, one of the four Asian tiger economies, later turning into a global financial city with booming tourism.
However, almost 22 years after the handover of sovereignty, the damage of a governing coalition of business elites, local bureaucrats and CCP leaders that opposes democratic reform, the regulation of excessive working hours, and a comprehensive pension system, has taken its toll. 

There is also a hyper-awareness of the city’s fragility through its over-reliance on food and water from China, absorbing excessive numbers of Chinese tourists for chain stores, and accepting unrestricted Chinese capital to purchase local media, land and housing.
The political regression and economic erosion are turning Hong Kong into an unliveable city with homogeneous industries, self-censoring press and universities, tilted social and land policies, and unaffordable housing prices. 

The more we rely on China, the fewer bargaining chips the people of Hong Kong will possess to call for electoral reform in the long run. 

The deterioration on all fronts also paves the way for the increasing overconfidence and arrogance of Hong Kong and Chinese officials. 

The extradition bill is only one example of their hubris.
The fight in Hong Kong is part of the struggle for a free and equal world; an aspiration that communities co-exist with equality, collaboration, vibrancy, and democracy. 

To achieve such a dream, defending Hong Kong’s rule of law and defeating the extradition bill is where the people must start.
But our long-term hopes rely on whether we can pressurise the CCP to devolve its power to the people and implement genuine electoral democracy at various administrative and community levels. And we must remember that a democratic Hong Kong could lead to a more democratic China. 

With a stable polity and healthy economy, the world’s rising superpower could play a role in making the world a better place.
The people of Hong Kong are prepared for the fight, directing their demand from the extradition bill to the defence of and reform of the one country, two systems principle; a long lost promise that should be upheld collectively by the international community. 

In the G20 summit held in late June, the stage is set for the people and world leaders to give voice to their vision of a better world – a world that would not turn a blind eye to the plight of those in Hong Kong.

HONG KONG PROTESTS MARK MAJOR TURNING POINT IN RESISTANCE TO CHINESE TOTALITARIANISM

By NEWT GINGRICH

One of the most important struggles on the planet is taking place right now between the people of Hong Kong and the Chinese dictatorship of Xi Jinping.
My next podcast on Sunday, June 23, will be on the meaning of the struggle in Hong Kong. 

This is an extraordinarily important moment.
The Communist Chinese system wanted to extend its ability to prosecute people in Hong Kong by passing a new law that would make it easy to extradite people from the special administrative region to the mainland court system. 

Hong Kong residents saw this as a direct assault on their rights under the agreement that returned Hong Kong from British control to Chinese control.
The principle had been established that there would be one country but two systems. 

The British belief in the rule of law, due process and free news media had been continued even after the colony left British control and was once again Chinese territory (which it had been before 1842).
Under British rule, Hong Kong had become an astonishingly wealthy and prosperous city-state. 

Its 7.4 million people are intensely entrepreneurial. 

It has the highest concentration of extremely wealthy people of any city in the world and the largest number of skyscrapers. 

Its low-tax system has been studied by economists as a model for supply-side economics and was in many ways a model for President Ronald Reagan. 

Alvin Rabushka's Hong Kong: A Study in Economic Freedom is a good example of the effect the low-tax, high-growth, wealth-creating system had on modern economists.
As the British left, the entrepreneurial, hard-working and creative millions in Hong Kong worried that they would be absorbed into the mainland dictatorship. 

They were assured that they would be part of a "one country, two systems" model in which Beijing would manage foreign policy and national security but Hong Kong would retain its unique characteristics.
However, from the beginning, freedom was limited, as Beijing insisted on a limited electorate (largely dominated by supporters of Beijing). 

The average Hong Kong resident has little impact on the government and knows it.
It has been 22 years since the July 1, 1997, handover of Hong Kong from Britain to China. 

The system has worked moderately well in maintaining a balance of economic and personal freedom within and next to a totalitarian system.
However, Beijing simply can't let Hong Kong alone. 

It would be wise for Beijing to emphasize the "two systems" part of the "one country, two systems" formula. This would increase the possibility of the people of Taiwan moving toward reunification with China.
The problem with this idealistic optimism is that freedom for Hong Kong reassures Taiwan but undermines the totalitarian system.
A key part of the Communist Party's claim to legitimacy is the notion that "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is the only practical way to manage a country with 1.4 billion people. 

Their social contract has been that they would improve incomes and the quality of life in return for the Chinese people accepting a totalitarian system with intense social controls and pervasive policing.
There have been three objective challenges to the Beijing dictatorship: Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore. 

In all three places, people of Chinese background and culture live in freedom and create wealth on a remarkable scale.
Today, Beijing does not have the power to change either Taiwan or Singapore. 

But it does have the power to change Hong Kong. 

Like all totalitarian systems, it simply can't help itself. It must keep extending its power of coercion even if it is unchallenged.

What has been remarkable is the popular outrage and the collective courage of the people of Hong Kong. 

According to a poll by the University of Hong Kong, overwhelmingly, they identify with Hong Kong and not China. 

Many do not want to become part of the totalitarian system. 

They have had 1 million to 2 million people participate in demonstrations—more than one in every seven residents.
The Beijing-supported Chief Executive Carrie Lam initially used the police to try to suppress the demonstrators. 

This led to a harsh backlash and an even greater turnout for Sunday's demonstration.
This turned the Hong Kong struggle into a major turning point. 

Having gotten the extradition bill withdrawn with a million-person demonstration, after Lam apparently lost her nerve, the people of Hong Kong then turned out in twice that number to demand the chief executive step down and the bill be permanently blocked.
In a remarkable moment of timing, the day after the 2-million-person march, Joshua Wong, a leading pro-democracy activist, was released from prison after serving one month of a two-month sentence for demonstrating in 2014. 

Wong is a symbol of commitment to freedom and a charismatic figure who immediately called for Lam's resignation.
Protesters occupy a street demanding Hong Kong leader to step down after a rally against the now-suspended extradition bill outside of the Chief Executive Office on June 17 in Hong Kong.

The key test now is what Xi is going to do about this direct confrontation between Hong Kong's people power and Beijing's military and police power.
If he allows the people of Hong Kong to get in the habit of demonstrating and talking without repression, there is a real danger this spirit will spread to the mainland.
On the other hand, trying to repress Hong Kong could be much bloodier and more expensive than Tiananmen Square was 30 years ago.
The Belt and Road Initiative- and Huawei-promoting, globe-traveling Xi Jinping wants to be acceptable in capitals around the world.

On the other hand, the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and chair of the Central Military Commission has a responsibility at home to sustain the totalitarian system.
July 1 is the 22nd anniversary of the handover from Britain to China. 

In recent years, this date has been used by democracy activists to protest and communicate their desire for genuine self-government. 

This year, July 1 could turn into a genuine test of the concept of "one country, two systems."
If Xi exercises disciplined restraint and allows Hong Kong to evolve, we will be in a vastly different world—and may be able to talk about a long-term evolution from dictatorship toward freedom for China.
If, on the other hand, he moves to crush dissent and to impose totalitarian controls on Hong Kong, we will be in a much more serious challenge to freedom across the planet.
This is a critically consequential moment that matters to all of us — not just to the more than 7 million citizens of Hong Kong. 

Now, we must wait and see what Xi decides.