Need To Know: May 27
Police preemptively arrest people in Causeway Bay
Hong Kong Police preempt protests
Hong Kong Police said they had arrested almost 300 people on suspicion of illegal assembly on Wednesday, after moving to stamp out protests against Hong Kong's incoming national anthem and national security laws.
Officers confronted protesters, and stopped suspected demonstrators in various parts of the city from lunchtime onwards. Pepper balls were fired at a crowd of protesters in Central, schoolgirls were searched in Mong Kok, and a large number of people were held by officers in Causeway Bay before being taken away in coaches.
Police had earlier surrounded the city’s parliament with water-filled barriers, and fanned out across the city to conduct widespread stop-and-search operations in a bid to deter mass gatherings.
The attempted protests came ahead of the afternoon debate among lawmakers to criminalize insults to the national anthem of the People's Republic with up to three years in jail. The bill was introduced after Hong Kong soccer fans repeatedly booed the anthem at the start of matches.
Describing the scene, prominent pro-democracy activist Nathan Law said, "It's like a de facto curfew now."
How legal preemptive law enforcement is only matters if you have the rule of law. In Hong Kong, that’s eroding very quickly.
China has no legal authority to enact security law for Hong Kong: HK Bar Association
We suggested in our primer on China’s plan to impose a national security law on Hong Kong that Beijing’s move was legally dubious.
And the Hong Kong Bar Association agrees. The city’s professional body of barristers argued Beijing has no power under the Basic Law to use its rubber stamp parliament the National People’s Congress to use Article 18 to insert the legislation into Annex III as intended.
The Basic Law was negotiated between Britain and China in the run up to the return of the British colony to the People’s Republic in 1997. It sets out the principle of “One country, two systems,” over a 50 year transition period.
National laws shall not be applied in the HKSAR except for those listed in Annex III to the Basic Law. Laws listed in Annex III shall be confined to those relating to defense and foreign affairs as well as other matters outside the limits of the autonomy of the HKSAR. The laws listed in Annex III shall be applied locally by way of promulgation or legislation by the HKSAR.
The association notes that Article 18 of the Basic Law says laws included in Annex III shall be confined to those relating to defense and foreign affairs, matters outside the limits of the autonomy Hong Kong government. It adds Article 23 clearly states that Hong Kong shall enact its own laws covering treason, secession, sedition, subversion and in relation to foreign interference.
The Bar Association also pointed out there was no assurance that the proposed legislation would comply with provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Hong Kong is a signatory.
Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, requires the Hong Kong government under Article 23 to enact its own national security law prohibiting acts of, “treason, secession, sedition, or subversion.” But Hong Kong has not done so — largely because an attempt made in 2003 resulting in huge street protests that caused the bill to be withdrawn.
What effect will this legal rebuke have?
None.
There is no mechanism beyond sanctions or war to stop China.
In other words, “One country, two systems” depends on Beijing’s good faith. Previous Chinese regimes respected that. It’s increasingly clear Xi Jingping’s Communist China is very bad faith.
This is why many say this precedent means the beginning of the end of the Basic Law, and “One country, two systems” in Hong Kong.
Most Americans would pay more to not buy Chinese
A whopping 78 percent of Americans say they are willing to pay more to avoid buying products made in China.
Additionally, 40 percent say that they will no longer be buying Chinese products. The poll conducted conducted May 12-14 by FTI Consulting also found:
55% don’t think China can be trusted to follow through on its trade-deal commitments signed in January to buy more U.S. products
78% percent said they’d be willing to pay more for products if the company that made them moved manufacturing out of China
66% said they favor raising import restrictions over the pursuit of free-trade deals as a better way to boost the U.S. economy
For observers of trade policy, that last point is striking because a large majority in the U.S. have traditionally shunned protectionism. According to Gallup, almost four-fifths of Americans embrace international commerce as an opportunity rather that a threat, a number that’s steadily risen over the past decade.
The degree of the shift and the timing of it — less than six months before a presidential election — may mark a sea change in the electorate.
President Donald Trump has floated severing ties with China in recent weeks, telling Fox Business that “there are many things we could do — we could cut off the whole relationship.”
Among the alternatives? India has created two large special economic zones to attract companies leaving China.
Given the United States is China’s largest trading partner by a long shot, this is a serious problem for Beijing.