China has an exalted sense of nationhood. Its leaders vilify any
comment on its political practices as unwarranted outside
“interference,” yet Beijing is always eager to lecture America on
its policies. Last week, for instance, U.S. officials met with
Martin Lee, founder of the party with the most elected seats in
Hong Kong’s legislature.
The People’s Republic of China very publicly took offense at
this. Appointed Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa complained,
“We will not accept interference from foreign people. Our own
people should also not invite foreign people to interfere.”
The Lee controversy was part of on ongoing brouhaha over the
nation’s handling of the “Special Administrative Region” of Hong
Kong. Hundreds of thousands of the city’s 6.8 million residents
successfully rallied last year to protest the “anti-subversion”
legislation that was pushed by the Chinese government. Many of
those who took it to the streets then are now advocating free
elections and universal suffrage.
That shouldn’t be a controversial demand. In the 1984
Sino-British Joint Declaration China promised to guarantee Hong
Kong’s autonomy and various freedoms, including a “legislature
constituted by elections” after the city was turned back over to
the mainland. In the 1990 Basic Law, signed by both Britain and
China, Beijing pledged to provide an elective legislature and
executive by 2008.
However, Beijing has responded to talk of democracy by
denouncing activists as “clowns,” “dogs,” “dreamers,” and
“traitors,” who are “unpatriotic” and “meddlesome” for seeking
“outside interference” in Hong Kong’s affairs.
IT COMES AS LITTLE surprise that the unelected Communist leaders in
Beijing fear the exercise of democracy in lands peopled by ethnic
Chinese. Consider the PRC’s reaction to past and present
presidential races in Taiwan, as well as President Chen Shui-bian’s
use of a popular referendum on relations with China.
Equally threatening is the fact that Hong Kong residents can
vote, and have favored independent voices over Beijing lackies. Bai
Gang, director of the Centre for Public Policy Research at the
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, complains, “Pro-democracy
politicians have serious inadequacies in identification with the
country. However, they have the upper hand over the patriotic camp
in Hong Kong.”
Translation: In the PRC’s view the wrong folks are winning
elections. As a result, Martin Lee has more popular legitimacy than
does Chinese President Hu Jiantao. Observes the Wall Street
Journal: “Mr. Lee is thus a leader of the only elected
majority party in China. In free countries that would make him
prime minister, not a pariah.”
Chinese officials are now making noises about allowing only
“patriots” to participate in Hong Kong’s governance. And “patriots”
do not include anyone who favors Taiwanese independence, opposes
China’s Communist government, fought the anti-subversion
legislation, or simply doesn’t back the Communist Party.
Beijing has even threatened to dissolve the Hong Kong
legislature should pro-Beijing candidates lose control in elections
scheduled for September. “None of the democrats are trustworthy,”
explained Wen Wei Po, China’s designated spokesman on Hong
Kong.
THERE IS NOTHING Washington can do to prevent the PRC leadership
from engaging in unseemly name-calling when residents of Hong Kong
ask China to keep its word. Nor can theU.S. force China to keep its
word regarding democracy in Hong Kong, but at the very least, U.S.
officials can talk to democrats in Hong Kong.
Sen. Sam Brownback invited Mr. Lee to Washington to testify last
Thursday about the situation in Hong Kong. While here, Lee met with
a number of legislators, as well as Secretary of State Colin Powell
and NSC Adviser Condoleezza Rice. There was nothing seditious about
any of this. Indeed, Mr. Lee stated his faith that China’s top
leaders would “get it right.” He also wryly noted that he would
have preferred to make his case in Beijing, but the PRC refuses to
let him come.
Nevertheless, Chinese apparatchiks raised Cain. PRC Foreign
Minister Li Zhaoxing reiterated that China regards Hong Kong as its
property. “The Chinese people have the resolve, the ability and the
wisdom to maintain the stability and the prosperity of Hong Kong.
We do not welcome, nor do we need, any outside intervention in Hong
Kong affairs,” he said. The Foreign Ministry issued a statement
denouncing all “irresponsible comments by outside forces.”
The display brought to mind earlier attempts to browbeat
Washington into not allowing Taiwanese Presidents Lee Teng-hui and
Chen Shui-bian to visit the U.S., even to make airline connections
to other nations. The Clinton administration proved more than
willing to enforce China’s wishes. A decade ago President Lee
stopped at a military base in Hawaii on his way to Latin America.
He was not allowed to leave the facility. A year later Lee sought a
visa to attend an alumni gathering at Cornell University, his alma
mater. Only under congressional pressure did the administration
agree.
Four years ago, President Chen wanted to fly into Los Angeles on
his way to Latin America, where a number of small states officially
recognize Taiwan as an independent nation. The Clinton
administration reluctantly allowed the visit, on the condition that
he spend the entire 16-hours at his hotel. He was pressured to
cancel a meeting with four congressmen.
Not that Beijing was satisfied. The PRC warned that the Chen
visit might “severely” damage Sino-American relations. China has
similarly pressured other nations. Beijing sought to convince Great
Britain to prevent President Lee from visiting and Japan to bar
former President Lee from receiving medical treatment.
GRANTED, RELATIONS WITH the PRC are important. There is no one best
strategy to diffuse a potential confrontation in the Taiwan Strait,
and selling weapons to Taiwan, as well as offering vague promises
of defense, are actions that warrant serious debate. But there
should be no compromise over America extending its hospitality to
those who share its ideals around the globe. They should be
encouraged, not just allowed, to come for alumni visits, trip
layovers, and political discussions. This is an internal affair for
the U.S. in which China has no right to interfere.
It’s obvious that Beijing has yet to get the message that it
cannot dictate American policy towards visitors. The Bush
administration should call in China’s ambassador to settle the
matter once and for all. Like Beijing, he should be told,
America does not appreciate outside interference in its
internal affairs. Washington will allow whomever to visit
whenever it desires.
