It was an announcement which angered the Chinese authorities. The United Kingdom wants to open access to British citizenship to certain residents of Hong Kong who, in the context of the current crisis, would like to move away from Hong Kong territory in the long term.
At least 3 million Hong Kong citizens affected
What is on the table is a modification of the system of “British overseas passport” known as BNO for “British Nationals overseas”. This passport was issued to Hong Kongers before the handover of the former British colony to China in 1997. Currently, some 300,000 people hold this passport in Hong Kong but, according to the BBC, the British consulate in Hong Kong estimates that nearly 3 million additional residents enter the conditions to claim it, being born before 1997.
Extend the stay until access to citizenship?
Currently, this passport only allows a stay of six months in the UK, a limit that would be removed. In a video posted on social networks, thehe British Foreign Minister, Dominic Raab, explained the project: “If China continues like this and implements this national security legislation, we will change the statutes, eliminate the six-month limit and allow BNO passport holders to come to the UK to work and study there. extended durations of twelve months, which, themselves, would open the way to access to citizenship. “
A kind of “legalized exit door” for a little less than half of the population of Hong Kong.
–
China’s proposed national security law for Hong Kong is in direct conflict with its obligations under the Joint Declaration. If enacted, this law would violate Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedoms. UK and ?????????????????????????? are deeply concerned.
https://t.co/bbGgJgHklw pic.twitter.com/e7eQySFDFX– Dominic Raab (@DominicRaab) May 28, 2020
–
China evokes reprisals against the United Kingdom
In Beijing, this message was interpreted as interference in China’s internal affairs. Very quickly, Zhao Lijian, the spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, spoke of possible reprisals against the United Kingdom.. “If the United Kingdom insists on unilaterally changing the practices concerned, not only will it go against its own rules and of its promises, but it will also violate international law and the fundamental principles of international relations. We strongly oppose it and reserve the right to take corresponding countermeasures. “
–
2 pictures
–
–
At the heart of this diplomatic war, the law on national security
Weekend, the People’s National Assembly of China adopted a “national security law” taken in reaction to last year’s massive protests and violence in the former British colony. The aim is to suppress, on the territory of Hong Kong, any action of separatism, subversion or qualified activities of “terrorists” but also what could be interpreted as foreign interference.
A controversial law, decided in Beijing, which could be promulgated directly, without debate at the level of local authorities, which causes many fears according to the analysis of Eric Florence, specialist in contemporary China, researcher and lecturer at ULiège. “If promulgated directly, it would be seen as an affront to the autonomy of the Hong Kong legal system he explains. You should know that China itself has passed national security laws on its territory and it is these laws that are used systematically for the suppression of NGOs, lawyers or ordinary citizens. So there is a very strong fear with regard to public freedoms in Hong Kong, with the maintenance of what truly defines Hong Kong and there is also a fear with regard to possible institutions which would be directly under the control of the central government of Beijing “.
–
After the United Kingdom, the United States?
It’s not just in the UK that this national security law makes people cringe. In the United States, too, the authorities denounce China’s desire to impose this law on Hong Kong. And this despite the special status of this special administrative region returned to China by the British in 1997, provided that China undertakes, within the framework of an international treaty, to preserve in particular the capitalist system, independent justice and freedom of expression for at least 50 years. This is the “one country, two systems” principle.
–
Any idea that could spill over?
So two university professors took advantage of a carte blanche in Newsweek magazine to launch the idea. John Yoo, professor of law at the University of California at Berkley and Robert Delahunty, of the University of Saint Thomas in Minneapolis also chose their words to support their camp. The article is also placed in the “Opinion” section of the magazine.
They write : “allowing the citizens of Hong Kong to emigrate in large numbers to the United States could underline the enormous differences between the dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party and the Western democracies. This portrays a reputation for China and would allow the United States to achieve a moral victory. This would be part of the great American tradition of welcoming to our free lands those who have fled communist tyrannies in Hungary, Cuba and elsewhere. “
John Yoo was notably, in the early 2000s, an adviser to John Ashroft, a member of the Republican party, who was attorney general in the administration of President George W. Bush at that time. At the same time, Robert Delahunty was also in the United States Department of Justice.
–
Also in the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg
In an article with an evocative title (“Visas for Hong Kong”), the editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal also evokes the same idea, with words just as chosen, first referring to the will of the President of the United States to reduce certain commercial advantages which benefited Hong Kong. “President Trump on Friday released his response to the assaults on Hong Kong’s autonomy. […] The problem is that this punishment will fall mainly on the innocent citizens of Hong Kong, rather than the culprits in Beijing. A better idea would be to give the citizens of Hong Kong a corridor to escape to America. “
On Bloomberg’s website, it’s through columnist Eli Lake that the message is launched, in an editorial titled “Trump should open the doors of America to the citizens of Hong Kong.” The editorial says: “President Donald Trump will soon have to make difficult choices vis-à-vis China. And even if allowing more immigration may go against his instincts, it may be the best way to punish China for its actions against Hong Kong “.
If, in the United States, the idea is only at the suggestion stage in the press, this appeal is insistent. Maybe a way to probe opinion before formalization?
–
–
