China Condemns U.S. and Britain on Hong Kong Democracy
By KEITH BRADSHER
 ONG
KONG, April 27 — China's foreign minister responded angrily today to
American and British criticisms of its latest restrictions on democracy
here, accusing both countries of holding China to a double standard
after ignoring the lack of democracy in Hong Kong during more than a
century of British rule.
The strong reaction was the latest sign of a growing assertiveness in
China's foreign policy, as Beijing has sought to position itself as a
rising diplomatic power in Asia with influence to match its increasing
economic might. Historians and politicians here noted that there was
some truth to Beijing's complaint of a double standard, with Britain
and the United States showing little interest in democracy here except
in the 1940's and again in the 1990's.
"Do you think Hong Kong was democratic under British rule?" Foreign
Minister Li Zhaoxing asked reporters in Shanghai today. "Did the
British raise concerns about that? Did the Americans raise concerns?
No. Why don't you take a look at this double standard?"
Mr. Li joined other Chinese officials in saying that the running of
Hong Kong was an internal concern of China. "Are you clear on that?" he
asked. "Hong Kong is China's Hong Kong."
Kong Quan, the spokesman for China's Foreign Ministry, denounced at a
news conference in Beijing what he described as foreign interference in
China's internal affairs. He pointed out that while London used to
appoint governors to rule here, China had allowed a committee of
prominent local residents to choose the chief executive, subject to
Beijing's approval.
The committee, which has 800 members, is dominated by business
executives with large investments on the mainland, and they tend to
follow Beijing's wishes. Tung Chee-hwa, the Beijing-backed chief
executive since Britain transferred Hong Kong to Chinese rule in 1997,
ran unopposed in 2002 for a second five-year term.
Spokeswomen at the American and British consulates here declined to
comment today on the criticisms from the Chinese Foreign Ministry.
The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, China's
Communist Party-controlled Parliament, barred Hong Kong on Monday from
holding popular elections for the chief executive in 2007 or for more
than half of the seats in the legislature in 2008.
Bill Rammell, the British foreign office minister for China and Hong
Kong, called in the Chinese ambassador to London to protest the erosion
of the "high degree of autonomy" in Hong Kong that Beijing had pledged
to observe before the territory was returned to it in 1997. In
Washington, State Department and White House spokesmen also criticized
the decision, as did the American consul general here, Jim Keith.
"The United States believes that the Hong Kong people's aspirations
should be given priority in determining the pace and the scope of
democratization in Hong Kong," said Richard A. Boucher, the State
Department spokesman.
Martin Lee, the founding chairman of the Democratic Party here, said
today that the British had introduced very little democracy in Hong
Kong until the final years of their rule. Direct elections for the
Legislative Council began only in 1991, with 18 of the 60 seats chosen
by the public.
That proportion has gradually increased since then and will reach 30
directly elected seats in elections to be held in September. On Monday,
the National People's Congress capped this ratio at half the seats,
while the rest will continue to be elected by representatives of
so-called functional constituencies, like insurance and local chambers
of commerce, that tend to be dominated by pro-Beijing executives.
Mr. Lee said that he was nonetheless disappointed that Beijing had
resorted to such a blunt declaration on Monday that it would not permit
greater democracy here. Beijing could have simply asked Mr. Tung not to
introduce any bills containing electoral reforms to the legislature;
the Basic Law, Hong Kong's miniconstitution, effectively bars members
of the legislature from introducing such bills.
"They are really telling the world they don't care what they think, they want to rule from Beijing," Mr. Lee said.
Philip Snow, a leading historian of Hong Kong, said that the United
States had shown little interest in Hong Kong until the early stages of
World War II, when it actually put pressure on the British to return
most of the territory to China's Nationalists. The United States was
still opposed to colonialism then and was troubled by British rule
here, which had allowed practically no democracy up until then, Mr.
Snow said.
Only two members of the 13-member Urban Council were elected before
World War II, and only people who were completely fluent in English
were allowed to vote, which excluded most of the local population. The
remaining members of the council were appointed, and the council had
little power in any case, with the governor making all important
decisions in consultation with London.
Under American pressure, Britain did begin making plans in mid-1943 to
allow more popular rule here. At the time, Japan occupied Hong Kong,
controlling the territory from 1941 until 1945, a period of large-scale
killings, rapes and starvation of civilians by Japanese military forces.
Sir Mark Young, the British governor who came to Hong Kong soon after
the surrender of the Japanese, put forward a detailed plan for a
municipal council with two-thirds of its members elected by the general
public. But interest in the plan faded after his retirement in 1947,
while American officials stopped voicing support for democracy here
after 1948, in response to the Communist takeover in mainland China.
The plan was finally scuttled in the early 1950's to a considerable
extent because of the opposition of British and Chinese tycoons alike,
who feared that greater democracy would lead to higher social spending
and higher taxes.
Local business leaders have in recent months raised the same objections
to popular elections, siding with Beijing against the large majority of
Hong Kong's population that, polls show, favor direct elections.
Prominent executives have warned that elections could lead to the
establishment of a welfare state, a concern also raised in the late
1940's.
"The elite of the society, then as, I suppose, now, were dead against democratization," Mr. Snow said. Special Offer: Home Delivery of The Times from $2.90/week.
|
