Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Chris Patten. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Chris Patten. Afficher tous les articles

vendredi 22 novembre 2019

China is threatening autonomy of Hong Kong

Last British governor of region urges Foreign Office to object to Chinese remarks
By Patrick Wintour

Chris Patten receives the union flag after it was lowered for the last time in Hong Kong on 30 June 1997. 

Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong, has warned that China’s threat to overrule the Hong Kong judiciary represents a dramatic threat to the autonomy of the region and may damage its chances of remaining a thriving financial centre.
Patten called on the British government to speak out as soon as possible to express its concern at the Chinese remarks, which followed the overturning by Hong Kong courts of a ban on protesters wearing face masks, a move that infuriated Beijing.
China claimed that the compliance of Hong Kong’s laws with the Basic Law governing relations between Hong Kong and China could only be judged and decided by China’s Congress.
A spokesman for the National People’s Congress (NPC) legislative affairs commission said: “No other authority has the right to make judgments and decisions.”
Patten said in a letter to the foreign secretary, Dominic Raab: “The Chinese statement was in complete breach of the Sino-British joint declaration, which states that: ‘The Hong Kong special administrative region will be vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication.’” 
The declaration was partly negotiated by Patten.
He added: “The NPC’s statement could seriously undermine judicial independence and the rule of law in Hong Kong.“If the rule of law and autonomy are threatened, Hong Kong’s success as one of the world’s most important international financial and trading centres is at risk.”
Patten pointed out that in 1996, a year before the handover, the then prime minister, Sir John Major, had said that “if there were any suggestion of a breach of the joint declaration, we would have a duty to pursue every legal and other avenue available to us”.
The former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind also warned that the NPC statement was “a naked power grab by the central government from the Hong Kong judiciary, and is clearly in breach of both existing Hong Kong case law and the terms of the Sino-British joint declaration”.
The British protests came as Republicans in Washington predicted that Donald Trump would sign a bill passed by Congress this week that could open the way to fresh sanctions by the US against China.

jeudi 7 novembre 2019

Lord Patten lashes China's claims about 'black hands' and CIA interference

  • China broke the promises they made to Hong Kong
  • The mask ban put in place across the city last month was madness
By Jason Fang, Bang Xiao and Michael Walsh

Hong Kong's last British governor, Chris Patten, has hit back at his Beijing critics who accuse him of trying to "devastate the city" in the wake of months-long pro-democracy protests.
China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused Lord Patten, the current chancellor of Oxford University, of "hypocrisy, bigotry and ruthlessness" after he suggested the mask ban put in place across the city last month was "madness".
They said Lord Patten, who served as the governor of Hong Kong from 1992 until Britain's handover of the city to China in 1997, was using a "black hand" to meddle in Hong Kong's affairs.
In a wide-ranging interview with the ABC's The World program, Lord Patten said the accusations were "so preposterous that nobody of any intelligence should give it any credence".

He also criticised other "absurd arguments" made in China's state media about Hong Kong's history and the current unrest, including allegations the Chinese Communist Party gave the city democracy, and claims that foreign powers have helped organise the protests.
Here's some of what Lord Patten had to say:

On the claim that 'Britain never gave Hong Kong democracy':
"When Britain talked about introducing greater democracy in Hong Kong, who was the biggest critic?
Who said this mustn't happen? The Chinese Communist Party.
Because they said to Britain: 'You mustn't do that, because if people get democracy like in Singapore or Malaysia or other British colonies, they'll think they're going to have independence, and that's not going to happen'.
One of the most absurd arguments is the suggestion that China was in favour of democracy — China's never been in favour of democracy …
The old bit of propaganda, that 'Well, you didn't do it all before 1997, so you mustn't criticise us afterwards' — how many years is it since 1997?
22?
What are the Chinese Government doing? 
What have they done, which has actually produced a generation of people who want to be independent of China?"

On state media claims that he is a 'black hand':
"It's simply propaganda …
If you want to know what's happening in Hong Kong, if you're a Westerner, you look at the Hong Kong Free Press website — I hope in saying that I'm not going to bring about its closure.
The idea that kids, who were born in many cases way after I left Hong Kong, are being manipulated by a 75-year-old former diplomat is so preposterous that nobody of any intelligence should give it any credence, let alone write it …
I'm not criticising the Chinese for not implementing democracy, what I'm criticising them for is the squeeze they've put on freedoms right across the board in Hong Kong.
They broke the promises they made in developing democracy in Hong Kong
And you can't argue against that, because it's clear, it's on the record.
And I think that was a terrible error.

On claims the CIA is organising protests in Hong Kong:
"Well, I wonder how much a totalitarian regime understands what's happening down below, among the people.
The Chinese Foreign Minister is a highly "intelligent" man, and only a week or so ago [he] was saying the demonstrations were all a result of things being whipped up by the CIA or the British Government — the British Government couldn't manage a traffic jam in London, let alone organise demonstrations in Hong Kong.
I think that was both insulting to people in Hong Kong, and simply failed to understand the degree of concern about the erosion of Hong Kong's freedoms and way of life. 
How come 2 million people back in June were on the streets and demonstrating.
How come that even today, after all these weekends of violence, people are still demonstrating the things they believe in.

Should the UK offer protection to protesters, and what happens now?:
"I would like Britain to do that, but I would hope it wouldn't be necessary …
I hope Hong Kong will continue to be the sort of Chinese community with its own freedoms that people want to live in and to help thrive.
For China's benefit as well as for their own …
The most helpful thing China could do is, to borrow a phrase, to cut [Carrie Lam] some slack, to give her some elbow room so she could actually listen more to people in Hong Kong, listen to those who are giving very wise advice …
But the trouble is that at each turn, at every stage, the Hong Kong Government has done rather too little, too late.
And I'm sure that's because it's having to press for every inch of change that it makes."

Chris Patten is in Australia to give the Fraser Oration at Melbourne University. You can watch his full interview with The World on the ABC News Channel at 10:00pm AEDT.

lundi 2 septembre 2019

Hong Kong protests: calls grow to give citizens right to live and work in UK

Campaigners say it is time to extend the right of abode previously denied to British National (Overseas) passport holders
By Tania Branigan

Anti-government protesters in Hong Kong call on the British government to declare the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1997 invalid. 

Calls for the UK to restore the right of abode to people in Hong Kong are growing as the political crisis in the former British colony escalates.
As fears of direct intervention by Beijing grow, veteran pro-democracy campaigners have argued that Britain has a responsibility to protect residents who hold the passports it issued ahead of the handover.
Several hundred protesters rallied outside the British consulate on Sunday to demand they receive a full British passport, the Financial Times reported.
In the run-up to Hong Kong’s handover in 1997, Britain replaced the British Dependent Territories Citizens passports held by three million people with the British National (Overseas) passport, which grants the right to vote in the UK, but not the right to live or work here. 
A passionate campaign for holders to be granted the right of abode, particularly in light of 1989’s brutal crackdown on Tiananmen Square’s pro-reform protests, was dismissed – earning the BN(O) the nickname “Britain says No”. 
Craig Choy, a lawyer who has helped to lead the campaign for equal rights for BN(O) holders has compared the treatment of people in Hong Kong to the Windrush scandal.
The passports are available only to those who registered before 1997, and holders are not able to pass their status to their children, but the documents can be renewed at any time. 
The number of valid passports at the moment is thought to be in the tens of thousands, but renewals appear to have risen sharply in years when political tensions have run high.
Anson Chan, formerly the second highest official in the city, said the UK should consider the issue again: “You promised Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy and basic rights and freedoms – when those are taken away from them, surely Britain has a legal and moral responsibility to deal with the consequences.”
Martin Lee, the veteran Hong Kong campaigner nicknamed its “father of democracy”, said it was all the more pressing to revisit the right of abode and related issues in light of the protest movement and the fact that the “one country, two systems” arrangement which underpins the Sino-British joint declaration was no longer working.
“That’s the obligation of the British government, being the only other signatory to the joint declaration,” he said.
Last month Tom Tugendhat, chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee, said that Britain should grant Hong Kong citizens with BN(O) passports full UK nationality. 
He told the FT that “a few” cabinet ministers were supportive of the decision.
People gather to call on the British government to declare the invalidity of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Sunday. 

Chris Patten, the last governor of Hong Kong before the handover, unsuccessfully urged the UK to give the right of abode to all those holding British Dependent Territories passports.
The late Lord Ashdown, who as Liberal Democrat leader campaigned on the issue, said last year that Britain was “urgently in need of some soul-searching enquiry about our neglect of duty towards our former colonial subjects” which should include considering the rights of BN(O) in Hong Kong.
A government spokesperson said: “We continue to believe that the best solution for Hong Kong, and the British National (Overseas) passport holders that live there, is full respect for the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Sino-British Joint Declaration.”
Last year, declassified files revealed that Britain even pressured Portugal repeatedly not to grant rights to citizens of Macau before it handed the region back to China, fearing that it would increase the pressure to grant Hong Kong similar rights.
Lisbon granted passports, with full citizenship rights, to anyone born before late 1981 and allowed Portuguese nationality to be passed to their children.
One protester told the Guardian she was planning to renew her BN(O) passport in case of a crackdown by Beijing, even though she did not want to leave her home. 
She added: “I don’t expect Britain to give me residency, but it might help me to get somewhere else.”

mardi 22 août 2017

Thousands march in Hong Kong for release of pro-democracy leaders

In sweltering heat, protesters wear brown prison uniforms in homage to jailed Alex Chow, Nathan Law and Joshua Wong
By Tom Phillips in Beijing

People march in support of the imprisoned pro-democracy leaders in Hong Kong. 

Thousands of demonstrators have taken to the streets of Hong Kong – some clad in prison uniforms – to demand the release of three of the former British colony’s best-known pro-democracy leaders.
Alex Chow, Nathan Law and Joshua Wong – key leaders of 2014’s umbrella movement protests – were jailed for between six and eight months on Thursday for their involvement in an “unlawful assembly” that helped launch those historic demonstrations.
Supporters have denounced the court’s ruling as a politically motivated attack on the semi-autonomous city’s democracy movement while Hong Kong’s last governor, Chris Patten, called it a deplorable decision that would deepen fears about Beijing’s erosion of the territory’s freedoms.
Police said about 22,000 demonstrators joined the march across Hong Kong island – from Wan Chai to the court of final appeal in its financial centre – on Sunday afternoon to voice their anger, local broadcaster RTHK reported.
Despite sweltering heat, some protesters wore brown prison uniforms in homage to the trio of jailed campaigners and 13 other activists who were also imprisoned earlier in the week.

Thousands of people take to the streets in Hong Kong. 

“I’m trying to send the message that if you fight for human rights, democracy and the rule of law, then it is a crime. And if it’s a crime, then we are all criminals,” said Claudia Mo, a pro-democracy legislator, who was among the marchers. 
“I believe they are prisoners of conscience,” Mo said.
Others came carrying banners that read: “Free all political prisoners”, “One prisoner of conscience is one too many” and “It’s not a crime to fight against totalitarianism”.
“In the past when we chanted ‘release political prisoners,’ we were referring to [those in mainland China] ... but now it’s Hong Kong,” Derek Lam, a local pro-democracy activist, told the protest.
Ray Chan, another pro-democracy legislator, said: “We want to let those who have been jailed and those who are facing political prosecution know that they are not alone. What they have done was righteous and Hong Kongers do not believe they deserved what they got.
“Some have said the democracy movement has stalled. Today we are sending a strong message to those in power that the movement never dies. I came out today to tell those in power that we are united and we are not afraid.”
A photograph of the protest was posted on Wong’s Twitter account:

Hong Kong’s government has scotched claims politics was behind the decision to jail the trio. Matthew Cheung, the city’s number-two official, blamed those allegations on “bias in the views of foreign media”.
However, democracy campaigners are convinced the activists were imprisoned to stop them running for office during the next five years. 
Mo claimed the decision to jail Chow, Law and Wong was part of “Beijing’s grand plan” to cripple the pro-democracy camp and strip Hong Kong of its freedoms. 
But she insisted the plan would fail because of the passion of the city’s increasingly politicised youth. “We will have many more Joshua Wongs coming along,” she said.
In a letter to the Financial Times (paywall), Lord Patten said locking the trio up would fail to curtail Hong Kong’s ambitions for greater democracy. 
“It will surely have the opposite effect,” he wrote. 
“The names of Joshua Wong, Alex Chow and Nathan Law will be remembered long after the names of those who have persecuted them have been forgotten and swept into the ashcan of history.”
Speaking to RTHK, Eddie Chu, another pro-democracy legislator, said it was time for Hong Kong’s activists to abandon their computer screens and “pour [on to] the street” in protest.

samedi 27 mai 2017

Joshua Wong, the student who risked the wrath of Beijing: ‘It’s about turning the impossible into the possible’

He was still a geeky teenager when he led Hong Kong’s 2014 umbrella protests. Since then Beijing’s grip has tightened, but he’s not giving up the resistance
By Tania Branigan
Joshua Wong, Hong Kong activist and face of the umbrella movement.

Cometh the hour, cometh the boy. 
Very much a boy: 17 and looking even younger behind his black-rimmed spectacles, with baggy shorts accentuating his skinniness and shaggy hair in need of a trim. 
Bright, well-mannered and slightly geeky, everyone’s son was about to become an international celebrity.
In September 2014, an unprecedented wave of civil disobedience swept Hong Kong, with tens of thousands of people pouring on to the streets to call for democratic reforms. 
The shock wasn’t just seeing riot police deployed in the heart of a city regarded as apolitical, money-focused and essentially conservative. 
It was the numbers and sheer youth of these peaceful demonstrators, umbrellas held aloft to ward off teargas and pepper spray, as they confronted – peacefully, tidily and very, very politely – the wrath of Beijing.
The Face of Protest, in the words of Time’s cover, was teenager Joshua Wong
It was the detention of Wong and other student protesters – for storming into the blocked-off government complex – that first brought sizeable crowds to the streets of Central district, and the heavy-handed response of police that catalysed that extraordinary, exhilarating moment known as the umbrella movement. 
But when I tracked him down after his release he dodged personal questions and, indeed, most others. He didn’t like the idea of movements getting hung up on stars.
Two-and-a-half years on, the battle has shifted from the streets to the polling booths. 
Wong, now 20, has co-founded a new party, Demosisto, and is studying for a politics degree, although, he says: “Sometimes it feels as if I major in activism and minor in university.” 
Earlier this month he was in Washington, testifying before the cameras to US senator Marco Rubio’s congressional-executive commission on China. 
When I meet him, in London, he is promoting the modestly titled Netflix documentary Joshua: Teenager vs Superpower
“Being famous is part of my job,” he suggests in the film. 
He’s even smartened up, with shorn hair and a rather dapper jacket.

Police fire teargas at pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong in September 2014. 

“We’re working on it,” says his friend and fellow Demosisto founder Nathan Law, with a grin. 
He means the makeover, but portrays Wong’s profile as a collective, pragmatic decision too: “It is always a team play ... What we wanted to project through Joshua’s story is that as long as the city is undemocratic, and there’s underprivilege, and people’s interests are neglected, we will keep going.”
Wong judges the documentary, which won a Sundance Audience award, “a good platform to get people internationally – especially people who watched the umbrella movement and have maybe forgotten it already – more interested in the situation. In 2014, of course, it wasn’t necessary to have much focus on myself ... It’s been really hard to maintain people’s interest.”
The upsurge of protest was, in a way, as surprising to Wong as anyone.
“At school, the teachers told us: Hong Kong people are economic animals, focused on investment and the stock market. There was a sense that business development was the most important thing,” he says.
He comes from a quiet, middle-class family, not especially political, although his parents are supportive and, because of their faith, encouraged him to take an interest in the city’s poor. 
“I’m a Christian and my motivation for joining activism is that I think we should be salt and light,” he says – the salt of the Earth and the light of the world – “but a lot of politicians in Hong Kong say they are guided by the Bible. I think it’s ridiculous: how can you say your judgment fully represents God?”
His moral seriousness helps to explain why, aged just 14, he co-founded a group called Scholarism to protest against national education, a “patriotic” curriculum that critics attacked as pro-Beijing brainwashing. 
The small bunch of schoolchildren sparked huge protests: Wong shot to local attention – and the government backed down. 
Then came the umbrella movement.
There are obvious parallels with youthful, social media-fuelled protests elsewhere, as the original name of Occupy Central suggests, but when I ask about his political inspirations, he dismisses the idea: “No. No,” he says at once.
Wariness probably plays a part; it would do them no favours to be seen as influenced by foreigners. But his explanation is pragmatic. 
There are things to be learned from other movements, he concedes – “strategy, dealing with pressure, dealing with people. But it’s hard to follow tactics because they’re a different generation and different circumstance. Martin Luther King and Gandhi emphasised civil disobedience; but in their context that was very different from Hong Kong in 2014.”
Wong (right) with Nathan Law.

Can young people fuming at Brexit or Donald Trump’s presidency learn anything from him?
“I’m not saying everyone should be Joshua Wong or follow my journey. But at least it proved that activism is not just related to experienced politicians or well-trained activists who have been working for NGOs; it can also be students and high-schoolers,” he says.
The comedown from his moment of glory was swift and harsh. 
The protests dragged on for 79 days, losing goodwill and producing no immediate result as the National Education protests had. 
Recriminations flew: the leaders were too radical; or not radical enough. 
Middle-aged Hong Kongers had voiced their shame that it took young people to spur them into protest. 
Now some began to see them as naive, almost accidental heroes.
More punishing was Beijing’s reaction. 
The trigger for the protests was electoral reform proposals; but the deeper impetus was pushing back against the rapid erosion of Hong Kong’s freedoms
When Britain handed the territory back to China in 1997, the countries agreed that its way of life would continue unchanged for 50 years, with Hong Kong retaining a high degree of autonomy under the “one country, two systems” framework. 
Then, 2047 seemed a long way off. 
China needed to protect Hong Kong’s stability for the sake of its own economy, and might itself liberalise. 
Beijing promised universal suffrage. 
Wong, born the year before handover, will be 51 when the deal ends – but in Washington this month, he suggested it was already “one country, one and a half systems”. 
China has betrayed the joint declaration,” he says.
Hong Kong is now trapped in an irresolvable contradiction. 
Many residents are staunchly pro-Beijing; and for an even larger tranche, the priority is stability. 
But the young generation, in particular, increasingly see their identity as “Hong Kong” rather than “Chinese”; chafe at Beijing’s dictates; and are pushing back to reassert the region’s autonomy. 
Every such move intensifies Beijing’s fears and tightens its grip. 
Hong Kong’s institutions – the media, judiciary, universities – have come under ever greater pressure since the umbrella movement
Most chillingly, in 2015, five booksellers known for provocative works on China’s leaders vanished – only to resurface on the mainland, in custody, over book smuggling
And with each move by Beijing, the antagonism increases.
Lam Wing-kee, one of the Hong Kong booksellers who was taken into custody in mainland China. 

In part, Wong’s fame always rested on its sheer implausibility, captured in the title of the documentary. 
But he is more than a symbol. 
He isn’t glamorous and is no dazzling orator. 
Yet he has a knack for saying just the right thing at the right time in a way that people relate to, and for seeing the broader picture: “One person, one vote is just the starting point for democracy. What I hope is that politics shouldn’t be dominated by the pro-Chinese elite; it should be related to everyone’s daily life,” he says.
His group has, on the whole astutely, weighed and responded to each political shift. 
They have not stopped working. 
And against the odds, they have notched up significant wins.
Last September, Law became Hong Kong’s youngest legislator at 23 (Wong was too young to stand). It proved they could do more than protest: these days, they talk about bus routes as well as democracy. 
It also proved that it was not just about Wong. 
But that victory, too, is in doubt: the government wants to disqualify Law and other young activist-legislators from straying from their oath of office. 
If the courts rule against him this month, he will not only lose his seat but go bankrupt, saddled with the government’s costs.
“As young activists the unique advantage is that we have less burden; we don’t need to worry so much about salary or managing the situation with families,” Wong says.
But the advantage is relative. 
The young activists have sharply curtailed their future career options. 
He and Law were convicted over their initial 2014 protest under unlawful assembly laws and there have been fresh arrests over the 2014 protests. 
Wong was detained for 12 hours while trying to enter Thailand, and he and Law have been attacked by pro-Beijing protesters.
“We expected that maybe in future we may be put in jail. But how it’s created a threat to daily life is not easy to handle,” he says. 
“If at 14 I could foresee my future and this kind of pressure – I think it would be hard for me [to commit to it].”
In the documentary, he admits to moments where he has wept and thought he couldn’t go on. 
But he insists he enjoys it too: “I think its valuable, even if sometimes it’s quite boring and exhausting. I’m working up to the second I go to sleep.”
Law says – with affection – that Wong is a robot, without a second life: “His growing-up time was in politics. All the thoughts in his mind, as a teenager, were about how to change society. He can’t drag himself away to private life.”
That sounds like fun for his girlfriend, I say. 
Wong looks embarrassed: “I met her in Scholarism. So she strongly supports this.” 
He still plays video games and goes to the movies, he says. 
But clearly not very often.
Wong (centre) in Hong Kong in October 2014, as thousands of pro-democracy supporters occupied the streets surrounding the financial district.

The truth is that they keep fighting, in part, because they are already down a path with very few exits: “If I continue with activism, maybe in 10 or 20 years it will be one country one system – and then I will have to leave Hong Kong. And I was born and live in Hong Kong and I really love Hong Kong,” he says.
“Since 2015, I’ve travelled to different places, and every time I just miss the food. The milk tea, the breakfast in the cha chaan teng [a kind of cheap local restaurant]. I love those things. I don’t know why people love fish and chips. At all. No idea.”
He is really exercised now: “Visiting New York and DC – having lunch with think-tank leaders and just grabbing a sandwich and a Coke, without any rice or hot food – why they can accept these things every day for their lunch I just don’t know. I love Hong Kong very much.”
It’s the most expansive he has been, which isn’t as incongruous as it sounds. 
The fuel for the umbrella movement was never detached idealism, but a visceral attachment to a way of life that Hong Kong’s residents see fast disappearing, thanks to the flood of mainland wealth and the surge in migration as well as Beijing’s political grip.
Critics say the movement accelerated the cycle of clampdown and pushback with its rejection of electoral reform proposals. 
Beijing offered one person, one vote – but only if the slate of candidates for chief executive was under its control. 
That was pointless, said the activists; it offered no meaningful choice.
“In the long term, the erosion of Hong Kong autonomy is a given,” says Steve Tsang, the head of the Soas China Institute, who was raised in Hong Kong. 
“The game is how you slow down and minimise that. You don’t do it by going to war with Beijing – because you can’t win. They would rather destroy Hong Kong.”
China is the world’s second-largest economy; the region is no longer economically indispensable. 
But 30 years are left on the agreement’s clock, and, as Tsang says, a lot could change in China in that time. 
Saying yes to electoral reform would have given residents some say and encouraged Beijing to ease up.
Demonstrators protest at Wong’s detention as he tried to enter Thailand last year. 

The counter view is that without resistance there is little cost to Beijing’s encroachments, and that Hong Kong was sleep walking into a wholly different future. 
Suzanne Pepper, a long-time Hong Kong resident and researcher, says the original – much older – conveners of the civil disobedience wanted a wake-up call for Beijing. 
It was the students who turned it into a wake-up call for Hong Kong.
Now, as the cycle continues, ever more radical voices are emerging. 
Talk of independence in Hong Kong was once the preserve of an extreme fringe; last year, a survey found 17% of residents wanted it – rising to 40% among 15-to-24-year-olds – though more than 80% judged it impossible. 
Demosisto says it wants self-determination; and that, of course, is just as unacceptable to Beijing.
They are, as Law says, “walking on a high wire, careful of every step”. 
They have dodged obvious traps: being pushed into more extreme positions, or, equally, being distracted into battles within pro-democracy ranks. 
Wong admits that decisions become harder as their influence grows, but is strikingly confident in his own judgment: “I still have strong beliefs and know what’s the next step.”
There have been potential missteps; Pepper says Wong’s testimony to Rubio’s committee makes it easier for opponents to push the idea that he is the dupe of hostile foreign forces. 
A pro-Beijing paper has attacked him as a “race traitor”. 
But they need to keep international attention and, says Wong, “Hong Kong is a global and open city. It’s normal to reach out ... We hope the international community will keep its eyes on Hong Kong and support this movement.”
That looks particularly optimistic given the UK’s reluctance to challenge China in any but the most muted way over the erosion of promises in the joint declaration. 
Hong Kong’s former governor Chris Patten warned recently that Britain was “selling its honour”. Wong says he has been shocked by its silence at critical moments and is scathing overall: “It just focuses on trade deals.”
And that, perhaps, is the subtext of the new documentary’s title. 
It’s not so much investing Wong with superhero status as asking why a bunch of teenagers and twentysomethings have been willing to confront the might of China, at considerable cost, while governments are craven. 
That question becomes all the more important as the 20th anniversary of the handover approaches this summer. 
Xi Jinping is expected to make his first visit to the region as Chinese president to mark it: another potential flashpoint.
Beijing’s grip is continuing to tighten and the outlook for activists is, on any rational reading, grim. But Wong sees that as an admission of defeat before the struggle has even begun. 
“Don’t be afraid or scared for the future of Hong Kong,” he insists. 
“My starting point was founding Scholarism: at that moment, I couldn’t expect 100,000 people in the streets. I couldn’t imagine the umbrella movement when it began. I couldn’t imagine Demosisto. It’s always about turning things that are impossible into the possible. The enjoyable moment is creating the miracle.”

• Joshua: Teenager vs Superpower is released on Netflix on 26 May.

samedi 28 janvier 2017

Chris Patten: UK risks selling its honour on Hong Kong

"I wonder what has happened to our sense of honour and our sense of responsibility"
By Danny Vincent

Chris Patten: "What has happened to our sense of honour and our sense of responsibility?"


The former governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, says the UK risks not meeting its promises to the territory and "selling its honour" in an attempt to reach trade deals with China.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight, Lord Patten said the UK had let down "a generation" of democracy activists.
It is 20 years since Hong Kong was returned to China after more than a century of British rule.
The UK government says it takes its commitments to Hong Kong seriously.
Anson Chan, former Hong Kong chief secretary -- who worked as Lord Patten's deputy -- also expressed deep concern about China's behaviour towards Hong Kong.
Citing the example of the alleged kidnapping by China of five booksellers and other rights abuses, she told BBC Newsnight that the "one country, two systems" form of rule itself is under threat.
"Unfortunately the rest of the world -- particularly Great Britain -- would rather pretend not to see what is going on," she said.
"If they continue to ignore this steady erosion, by the time they wake up to the fact that 'one country, two systems' exists only in name, it will be too late."
In the 1980s the Chinese and British leadership agreed that Hong Kong would be guaranteed certain freedoms not enjoyed in the rest of China -- freedom of press, freedom of assembly and a partially-elected law-making council.
This principle, known as "one China, two systems", was a part of the Sino-British joint declaration -- an international agreement guaranteeing Hong Kong those freedoms after the handover.
Lord Patten said the UK government has not "manifestly stood up for Hong Kong".

"I wonder what has happened to our sense of honour and our sense of responsibility -- particularly in Britain. It's above all a British question," he said.
"We signed the joint declaration with China. It's a treaty at the UN. It's supposed to commit us to standing up for Hong Kong's rights until 2047."
"And you don't get much sense of the British government actually standing over those promises and obligations and I think that's a great pity."
Lord Patten said the UK risks putting its desire to do trade with China, over its commitment to Hong Kong.
"It's all for derisory, ludicrous reasons," he said. 
"The argument that the only way you can do trade with China is by kowtowing to China on political issues is drivel -- it's complete nonsense."
"I worry about how people are prepared to sell our honour for alleged trade deals which never actually happen. I think that that would be calamitous. And what do we represent to the world if that's what happens?"
In 2015, five publishers selling critical articles about the Chinese leadership disappeared, only to reappear in detention in the mainland.
One bookseller had been abducted while in Hong Kong. 
Four of the publishers -- including a British passport-holder -- were eventually returned to Hong Kong. 
One Swedish national remains in Chinese detention.
Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets of Hong Kong in 2014 in what came to be known as the "Umbrella Protests". 
The protests lasted several weeks, and captured the world's attention, but failed to achieve any concessions from Beijing.
" I feel very strongly that we let down the parents of this generation of democracy activists. I think it would be a tragedy if we let down these kids as well," Lord Patten said.
A Foreign Office spokesperson said: "The UK takes our longstanding commitment under the Sino-British Joint Declaration very seriously."
"We believe that 'one country, two systems' continues to be the best arrangement for Hong Kong's long term stability and prosperity, as it has been for nearly 20 years.
"We hope and expect that 'One Country Two Systems' will be respected and successful long into the future."
The spokesperson added: "We regularly discuss the importance of respect for 'one Country, two Systems' and Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy with the Chinese Government. The Foreign Secretary made this clear to his Chinese counterpart when they met in London in December."