Arts & Culture 
 Business 
 Environment 
 Government 
 Health 
 Human Rights 
 Military 
 Philosophy 
 Science 
 U.S. Asian Policy 


Home > East Asia > 

U.S. scholars, tights rxperts, union leaders, and politicians urge President Bush to oppose Article 23
AFAR
12/13/2002



 Related Articles
China's Slavery Scandal Reveals Weaknesses in Governance
Hong Kong's Biggest Rights Violation Since 1997
Global Chinese Dance Competition Opens in New York
Jiang Zemin Sued in Hong Kong
The Anti-Seditious Speech Debate and Media Law Reform
Thousands Commemorate June 4 in Hong Kong
A Campaign in Hong Kong without a (Real) Election
Chinese Internet Fees Higher Than Developed Countries
China and Africa: A New Scramble?
'Handwriting on the Wall': Twenty Million Withdraw from Chinese Communist Party
 
China scholars, human rights experts, labor leaders, and politicians from both the right and the left in the U.S. have co-authored an open letter to urge President Bush to speak out against the so-called anti-subversive bill, otherwise known as Article 23, which is now being imposed by Beijing upon the Hong Kong people and authorities. The majority of Hong Kong residents feel threatened by this bill because their right to freedom of conscience, expression, and association is at risk.

Western business leaders and scholars also believe that this bill could jeopardize the interests of foreign investors and establishments in Hong Kong.

The following is the full text of this open letter:
-----------------------------------------------------------
November 25, 2002

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

Since Hong Kong's 1997 reversion to Chinese rule, U.S. officials have expressed repeatedly America's commitment to defending Hong Kong's freedoms. You reiterated this concern during your recent meeting with President Jiang Zemin.

Proposed national security laws soon to be introduced in the Hong Kong Legislative Council, however, represent a new and heightened threat to Hong Kong's freedoms and autonomy. These laws - which include laws on treason, subversion and sedition - will curb freedom of speech, assembly and association. If enacted, they would endanger Hong Kong's democratic, civil rights, labor, academic and religious communities by exposing them to prosecution and imprisonment.

This danger exists even if these laws are narrowly drawn because of the broader political context in which they will operate. Hong Kong's legislature is not fully democratic, its chief executive is chosen by Beijing, and the independence of the courts is limited. Hong Kong's system of government gives the central Chinese government control over key levers of power.

Even where the Hong Kong government may appear to act on its own, Beijing makes its desires known through statements made by its top officials, and through Chinese-owned or controlled outlets of the Hong Kong media. Last summer, for example, Vice Premier Qian Qichen declared that it was now time to enact these national security laws. Tellingly, in response to local and international protests over the laws, Mr. Qian said the laws' opponents "must have the devil in their hearts." In brief, these new laws will be enforced in an environment in which the appropriate political and legal checks and balances do not exist, and under the influence of a regime with a record of using national security laws to punish advocates of political and religious freedom.

Wishing to defend Hong Kong's freedoms under Chinese rule, the U.S. Congress adopted the U.S. Hong Kong Policy Act, a law that gives Hong Kong treatment separate from the mainland on important matters. Under the law, the president is empowered to determine whether Hong Kong is sufficiently autonomous to merit that privileged treatment. So far, U.S. presidents have been reluctant to conclude that the systemic limitations on the citizens of Hong Kong and the setbacks to its autonomy since 1997 require a change in Hong Kong's treatment under U.S. law. However, with the enactment of the proposed national security laws, it would be impossible to credibly maintain that Hong Kong enjoys the high degree of autonomy and the rights and freedoms it was promised on its reversion to China.

Only when Hong Kong's government is democratic and its courts truly independent will national security laws reflect the proper balance between freedom and legitimate law enforcement interests. Until then, the U.S. should forthrightly oppose the introduction of new national security laws and make clear that the adoption of restrictive laws would trigger a review of Hong Kong's special status under the U.S. Hong Kong Policy Act.

Sincerely,

William Kristol
Dick Thornburgh
Morton Abramowitz
Mark A. Anderson
Andrew Y. Au
Gary Bauer
Robert L. Bernstein
Max Boot
Ellen Bork
Steven C. Clemons
Helle Dale
Midge Decter
Thomas Donnelly
Nicholas Eberstadt
Robert Edgar
Amitai Etzioni
Hillel Fradkin
Sam Gejdenson
Merle Goldman
Bruce Jackson
Robert Kagan
Max M. Kampelman
Adrian Karatnycky
Penn Kemble
Craig Kennedy
Harold Hongju Koh
Tod Lindberg
Bette Bao Lord
Connie Mack
Mary Beth Markey
Martin Peretz
Danielle Pletka
Norman Podhoretz
John Edward Porter
Gary Schmitt
Sin-Ming Shaw
Paul Simon
Stephen Solarz
Leonard Sussman
John J. Sweeney
John Tkacik
Arthur Waldron
Jennifer Windsor
Larry Wortzel

© Copyright 2002-2007 AFAR