Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Opinion

Hong Kong tests China’s commitment to a rules based international system

3 June 2020
Maximiliaan van Lange

The new Hong Kong security law also threatens the territory's prosperity and character argues Maximiliaan van Lange in this op-ed for commonspace.eu

While the international community is busy dealing with the humanitarian and economic consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic Beijing last week decided to impose a new national security law on Hong Kong. The new law criminalises support for secession from China, as well as foreign interference in Hong Kong affairs, terrorism, and insulting Chinese symbols such as the flag and anthem. It also opens the prospect of Chinese security agencies operating in the territory.

Following its approval by the country's National People's Congress last week, the law is now expected to be incorporated directly into Hong Kong's Basic Law. This puts into question the guarantees for Hong Kong's autonomy that were enshrined in the Basic Law by the Chinese authorities in 1997 as part of the deal brokered with Britain. When the British renounced power in 1997, it was agreed that for 50 years, until 2047, Hong Kong would not be subject to the same laws as China in an arrangement referred to as "One country, two systems". Many in the international community consider that by introducing the new security law China has broken the 1997 agreement. The introduction of the new law is therefore seen as yet another Chinese challenge to a rules-based international system.

Given the ban on public demonstrations in Hong Kong because of Covid-19, Beijing hoped to quietly push through the security law without too much opposition in the territory itself, and avoiding a stand-off with the international community, particularly the United States (US). However, last Friday (29 May) President Donald Trump ordered his government to withdraw trade and other concessions that the US had granted Hong Kong because of its special status. The Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, stated in an interview with Fox News (31 May) that President Trump will take steps against Chinese and Hong Kong officials directly involved in the administration of the new law, and that a stricter supervision policy on Chinese students in the US will be introduced. The US and Hong Kong enjoyed visa-free travel, and import and export duties were low. This helped make, Hong Kong one of the most important business centres in Southeast Asia. The revocation of the concessions will have significant consequences for the territory. China itself sees American sanctions as nothing but a show of political posturing.

The international community has a keen interest in Hong Kong's prosperity and stability. It is a major trading hub. In 2019 Hong Kong's exports amounted to $535.7 billion and its imports to $578.6 billion. Hong Kong is a major export market for EU products. The US has 1,300 companies and about 85,000 US citizens currently live in Hong Kong. Compared to China's gross domestic product (GDP), which was worth $14200 billion in 2019, Hong Kong, with 7.4 million citizens accounted for $365.10 billion of GDP. Currently, 60 to 70 per cent of all Chinese foreign direct investments go through Hong Kong and many Chinese companies are listed on the Hong Kong stock exchange. The new situation is likely to very negatively impact the commercial interests of Western businesses who have invested heavily in the territory, and of westerners who live there. The restrictions on Hong Kong's civil liberties put in question its autonomy, and the "One country, two systems" system that has enabled it to become so prosperous, so the new law is also seen as detrimental to the very character of the territory, and its prosperity.

For the moment, the US appears to have taken the lead in responding to the new law, and it has secured the support of the United Kingdom (UK), Australia and Canada. In a joint response to the new Beijing Security Act, the four countries stated that the territory has "flourished as a bastion of freedom" and that the international community has a "substantial and lasting interest" in Hong Kong's prosperity and stability. They said that the new law threatens confidence in the Chinese government, and will undermine international cooperation. The four Western governments added that the new security law is in direct conflict with China's international obligations under the principles of the legally-binding, Sino-British Joint Declaration that was deposited with the United Nations on 27 May 1985.

Europe has so far reacted cautiously to developments in Hong Kong. The High Representative's statement on behalf of the EU, issued on 29 May 2020, declared the EU's "grave concern" about the situation and said that it will "raise" Hong Kong as part of its ongoing dialogue with China. German Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who will take over the rotating presidency of the EU on 1 July, and High Representative Joseph Borrell, have already stated that the EU will not follow the US in imposing trade sanctions against China.  

Many consider that the EU's response on Hong Kong has been too weak. As a self-proclaimed defender of freedom and democracy, the EU has a responsibility to provide a strong response to ensure Hong Kong's autonomy. Only Sweden asked for sanctions against China during the meeting of the European Ministers of Foreign Affairs on Friday (29 May). But it is also possible that the EU is for the moment keeping its powder dry. With a whole range of issues on which China is now at odds with the rest of the international community - ranging from trade to territorial disputes in the South China Sea and the Himalayas, China's power projection in Africa and the Pacific, and repression of dissent inside China itself - there are going to be plenty of problems on which a stand will need to be taken, and appropriate action executed.

It is clear however that it is necessary for the EU to quickly update its China policy to address the new realities to reflect considerations beyond trade, and to address serious geo-strategic challenges coming from China, many of which have been around for some time, but which the coronavirus pandemic has somehow made more starkly clear.

source: Maximiliaan van Lange is a Research Associate on Safety, Security and Transparency in the EU and beyond at LINKS Europe and currently studies History at Leiden University.
Photo: Hong Kong general view (archive picture)
The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security
Trending

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

13 November 2026
Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut