China and the future of Hong Kong

By Charles Onunaiju

Even in the most extensive and elaborate classical federal system with considerable devolution and share of power and function with the central and regional authorities, national security are usually and as a matter of rule, the exclusive prerequisite of the central government. Whether in the classical western federal system of governments like the United States, Canada or Australia, or developing countries like Nigeria, South Africa, Ethiopia, national security and defence are in the exclusive list and the constitutional prerogative of the central authority, or what professor K.C Wheare who was a leading authority in federalism called the “general government”.

National security is at the heart of the contemporary state, and no matter what mechanism a state adopts for its internal organization and intercourse, the prerogative of national security which fundamentally bothers on the survival of the state and the embodiment of its sovereign status has exclusively and in strict non-negotiable resided in the central authority.

With this background, it raises a fundamental questions to why some western countries, including, but limited to those with federal constitutions, to raise hue and cries over the powers of the Chinese central government to expand its national security law to reflect its security concerns in its special administrative region of Hong Kong. Hong Kong was an integral Chinese territory yanked off, as a colonial possession of the British opium war against the weak Chinese imperial government in the 1840s and through an imperial treaty imposed on the then, weak Chinese government, Hong Kong was “rented” out for 100 years, thus, coming under the British colonial suzerainty. In the course of negotiation for the de-colonization of Hong Kong and her reversion to its original Chinese sovereignty, the central government of the Peoples Republic of China in due deference to history and reality of the fact that their Hong Kong compatriots having been exposed to a system of government quite different from the rest of their other compatriots especially in the mainland, opted to allow for a high degree of autonomy for its Hong Kong region in the management of its own affairs. The high autonomy of the Hong Kong region of China most figuratively expressed in the framework of “One country, two systems” is far more extensive than an elaborate contemporary federalism of either the U.S, Canada, Australia or, the developing countries would allow. The Hong Kong special administrative region of China, has maintained control over its own separate currency – the Hong Kong dollar, immigration and more importantly its unique system of government. Even according to Article 23 of the Basic law establishing the administrative region of Hong Kong of, China at the end of British rule in 1997, the territory is invested with authority to enact appropriate security laws but failing as it has, the central authority in any constitutional government ultimately exercised the power for national security and defence, a classical prerogative of any central authority in contemporary modern state. It is common knowledge that national security is the very firm foundation of the modern state and national sovereignty will be a mere academic exercise, if it is not firmly grounded in national security and defence. China and the United Kingdom negotiation and signing of the joint declaration for the decolonization of the territory of Hong Kong was essentially about China’s resumption of sovereignty over Hong Kong.  China’s national security legislation for Hong Kong is therefore, unquestionably part of the exercise of China’s sovereignty over its own territory, a matter that is within the framework of international law and is strictly within confine of the internal affairs of the People’s Republic of China.

Within the ambit of the Basic law or Hong Kong Mini-Constitution, the territory has enormously prospered and contrary to the insinuations of the western media prior to its return to China’s sovereignty in 1997, Hong Kong as an international hub for trade, finance and logistics did not die as they vehemently predicted that the territory would be “dead”. As Hong Kong did not die from economic asphyxiation, as predicted on its return to China’s sovereignty, it would be made to certainly die from concocted political convulsion, the type that evidently gripped the territory for some time last year. If in Hong Kong, a small clique of radical groups acting as surrogates to external forces that are ideologically fixated on containing the rise of China, using its autonomous region as underbelly, is the central government expected to look away, while its territorial integrity, an extant and composite definition of its sovereign status ebbs away?

The Chinese national government in enacting the national security legislation covering its special administrative region of Hong Kong has fulfilled its responsibilities to its people within the framework of its sovereignty.

The Hong Kong political framework of considerable autonomy even far beyond what the contemporary practice of federalism would allow, gives enormous scope for local residents to exercise rights outlined in the basic law and the additional conventions of their cherished way of life but did not leave any room to challenge national sovereignty or contemplate Hong Kong’s independence.

It is, however, no gainsaying that it is exercises of such provocations as Hong Kong independence, especially under the direction of external elements that the national security legislation is specially designed to curb.

China’s critical innovation of “One country, two systems”, in actualizing the vision of its national sovereignty, unity of its peoples despite their varied historical experience, and ensuring social stability, inclusive and sustainable development is one of the creative political milestone of the 20th century that continues to reverberate up to this day. The success of such creative endeavor in national unification remained a mainstream contribution to various political challenges of modern times. The China’s national security legislation to secure one of the most contemporary successes in the art of peaceful political conciliation and compromise rightly deserve the support of all except for those with vested interests in the continuous rupture and turbulence of the international system and order.

• Onunaiju is director, Centre for China Studies, Abuja.