[Senate Hearing 116-142]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-142
THE HONG KONG EMERGENCY: SECURING
FREEDOM, AUTONOMY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EAST ASIA, THE PACIFIC,
AND INTERNATIONAL CYBERSECURITY POLICY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 26, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
39-678 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho, Chairman
MARCO RUBIO, Florida ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
CORY GARDNER, Colorado JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
MITT ROMNEY, Utah CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming TIM KAINE, Virginia
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
RAND PAUL, Kentucky JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
TODD, YOUNG, Indiana CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
TED CRUZ, Texas
Christopher M. Socha, Staff Director
Jessica Lewis, Democratic Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EAST ASIA, THE PACIFIC,
AND INTERNATIONAL CYBERSECURITY POLICY
CORY GARDNER, Colorado, Chairman
MARCO RUBIO, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
TODD YOUNG, Indiana TOM UDALL, New Mexico
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Gardner, Hon. Cory, U.S. Senator From Colorado................... 1
Markey, Hon. Edward J., U.S. Senator From Massachusetts.......... 2
Law Kwun-Chung, Nathan, Founding Chairman, Demosisto, Hong Kong.. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Yates, Stephen J., Chief Executive Officer, DC International
Advisory, Idaho Falls, Idaho................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Martin, Michael F., Specialist in Asian Affairs, Congressional
Research Service, Washington, DC............................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
(iii)
THE HONG KONG EMERGENCY: SECURING FREEDOM, AUTONOMY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific, and
International Cybersecurity Policy,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:45 a.m. in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Cory Gardner,
chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Gardner [presiding], Young, and Markey.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Gardner. This hearing will come to order.
Let me welcome you all to the fourth hearing of the Senate
Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia, The Pacific, and
International Cybersecurity Policy in the 116th Congress.
Today we will hold an emergency hearing to address the
issues of freedom and human rights in Hong Kong.
For over 5 months, millions of brave Hong Kongers have been
out on the streets demonstrating for freedom, freedom from
coercion, freedom for authoritarianism, and freedom to choose
their future. And they have already succeeded to a great extent
not only because the Hong Kong authorities realize the folly of
the so-called extradition bill--they have now withdrawn it and
belatedly offered dialogue with civil society--but also because
today on the fifth anniversary of the Umbrella Movement, the
demonstrators are showing to the world that democracy on
Chinese soil is alive and well. And it is perfectly compatible
with Chinese culture and history.
As we celebrate their bravery and determination today, let
us hope and pray that it will lead to revitalization of
democratic institutions throughout Asia. Promoting democracy
and human rights will be vital for the United States to succeed
in the Indo-Pacific and to prevail in the era of the so-called
great power competition with Russia and China. These values
differentiate the United States from the competition. These
values are just and right, and they are worth fighting for.
Today we are privileged to hear from those who are on the
front lines for the battle for freedom, autonomy, and human
rights. The United States should support their cause
unreservedly.
With that, I will turn it over the Senator Markey for his
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and
thank you for convening this very important hearing and for
your continued partnership on the subcommittee.
And I want to thank our witnesses for their willingness to
participate today, especially to discuss such a pressing set of
issues regarding the future of Hong Kong.
Eighty-five thousand Americans live in Hong Kong and 1.3
million U.S. citizens visited or transited in 2018. According
to the State Department, Hong Kong was the ninth largest
destination for exports of U.S. goods, and according to the
most recent data, U.S. exports to Hong Kong supported 188,000
United States jobs.
But all is not well in the Special Administrative Region.
The Chinese Government continues to intervene in Hong Kong
affairs, and in the process, the degree of autonomy granted to
Hong Kong under ``One Country, Two Systems,'' the very autonomy
that warrants special treatment by the United States under the
Hong Kong Policy Act, is eroding. And it is eroding
significantly. The Chinese Government backtracked on its
commitment to allow universal suffrage. The resulting Umbrella
Movement showed how strong-willed Hong Kong residents are. The
police cracked down but the protestors did not waiver in their
desire for freedom and for democracy.
And when the extradition bill was proposed earlier this
year, the people of Hong Kong took to the streets once again.
Hong Kongers say they have looked to the United States as a
beacon of freedom, but it is we who are moved by their brave
examples. Sensing their promised autonomy slipping away and
surely aware that authoritarians seek to repress them, the
people of Hong Kong are reminding the world that democratic
aspirations are universal.
Some call the protest leaderless, but as Hong Kong's own
Johnson Yeung has suggested, everyone who risks their well-
being through peaceful pro-democracy protests is showing
leadership. In my view the streets of Hong Kong are filled with
leaders.
The authorities have responded to popular action with
police misconduct. The police must cease their overreach and
provide timely access to lawyers, to family members, and
medical professionals for persons in custody. And we in the
United States must do what we can to prevent U.S. crowd control
equipment from making its way into the hands of repressive
forces.
We should also be aware that media organizations based in
mainland China are obscuring protestors' demands by suggesting
that those in the streets seek only destruction. Isolated
instances of violence amplified by authoritarian media can
undercut the protests by fueling this narrative.
As we speak, Facebook is still allowing Chinese state-run
organizations to purchase advertisements that cast protestors
as extremists. Social media organizations must not be allowed
to be used in a way that enables repression.
Whatever obstacles are put in their way, the people of Hong
Kong have demonstrated their commitment to achieving democratic
rule, including free and fair elections.
While it was up to the residents of Hong Kong to take the
lead in the fight for their fundamental human rights, we in the
United States can and we should make clear what values we want
to see in the world.
So I was proud to be an original cosponsor of the Hong Kong
Human Rights and Democracy Act, which passed out of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee yesterday. And I was pleased that
the House passed its version on the same day.
We have numerous steps yet to go, but I am hopeful that
Congress can speak with one voice on the need for Hong Kong to
retain its autonomy and for the citizens to enjoy all of the
liberties and rights which they deserve. After all, the United
States simply cannot afford to cede leadership on promoting
freedom around the world.
So, once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I look
forward to exploring these issues with our witnesses.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator Markey.
And thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. We
kindly ask you to limit your verbal remarks to no more than 5
minutes, and your full written statements will be included in
the record.
Our first witness is Mr. Nathan Law, who is the Founding
Chairman and current standing committee member of the pro-
democracy organization, Demosisto. During the 2014 Umbrella
Movement, Mr. Law was one of the five student leaders who
debated on live television with then Chief Secretary for
administration Carrie Lam. In 2016, Mr. Law became Asia's
second youngest--excuse me--became Asia's youngest every-
elected. It was me who was the second youngest Member of the
Senate. You are the youngest ever-elected lawmaker when you won
a seat in the Hong Kong Legislative Council, later disqualified
and imprisoned for several months.
Mr. Law, welcome to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
and I am privileged to have you testify before us, and we
cannot thank you enough for your commitment to freedom.
We are also joined by Steve Yates, our second witness. Mr.
Yates is currently the Chief Executive Officer of the DC
International Advisory, a strategic risk and public policy
firm. Previously Mr. Yates served in the White House as Deputy
Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs
from 2001 to 2005. During his tenure in government, he provided
direct support to the Vice President and his national security
advisor for key White House deliberations. Notably Mr. Yates
testified before this subcommittee on the same topic on July 1,
1999, or 2 years after the handover of Hong Kong to mainland
China in 1997.
Welcome, Mr. Yates. We look forward to hearing your
perspective especially with the benefit of the 20-year
hindsight from your last appearance before this committee.
Our third witnesses today is Dr. Michael Martin, who is a
Specialist in Asian Affairs at the Congressional Research
Service, the Library of Congress. Dr. Martin is a leading
national authority on Hong Kong both from his work at CRS and
having lived and worked in Hong Kong for a number of years.
From 1994 to 1998, Dr. Martin was the Assistant Chief Economist
for the Hong Kong Trade Development Council. Prior to his time
with the council, Dr. Martin taught at Hong Kong Baptist
University, Doshisha University in Japan, Colby College, and
Tufts University.
Welcome, Dr. Martin. I look forward to hearing from you as
well.
Mr. Law, you may begin your statement.
STATEMENT OF NATHAN LAW KWUN-CHUNG, FOUNDING CHAIRMAN,
DEMOSISTO, HONG KONG
Mr. Law. Chairman Gardner, Senator Markey, and Senator
Young, good morning.
This day 5 years ago, September 26 of 2014, marked the
beginning of the Umbrella Movement, which saw hundreds of
thousands of Hong Kong people occupy major throughways for 3
months in pursuit of democracy. It was our response to Chinese
leaders who broke their promise of universal suffrage. The
movement then escalated as the police responded by firing 87
canisters of tear gas against peaceful protestors.
The movement was ultimately unsuccessful in realizing our
dreams of a democratic society. As a student leader, I would
even subsequently be imprisoned for my role. But I distinctly
remember that on the last day of our occupation, fellow
protestors hung a large banner proclaiming ``We Will Be Back''
on Harcourt Road just outside the government headquarters. Five
years later, during this past summer of discontent, we have
made good on that promise.
Public anger in Hong Kong exploded in early June this year
against a proposed extradition law that would have allowed
criminal suspects of Hong Kong to face trial in China where the
legal system operates at the behest and mercy of the ruling
Communist Party. But with more than 2 million people marching
down through the streets, we exerted an unprecedented amount of
pressure to the government and forced Chief Executive Carrie
Lam to first suspend the bill in mid-June before fully
withdrawing it early this month.
But our struggle has moved far beyond a single bill or a
particular leader. What we demand is a systematic reform in a
way that honors the original spirit of the ``One Country, Two
Systems'' framework. Our prosperity and dignity as a society
have been built on the success of the rule of law, the
protection of human rights, and freedoms, and our autonomy. But
without democracy, these values and status are extremely
fragile for if the law is not written by the people, there is
no genuine rule of law. If the government is not formed by the
people, there is no real self-government, which is the
authentic meaning of autonomy.
The fact that I as the youngest lawmaker in Hong Kong's
history was forcefully unseated by Beijing is a testimony to
the--of both the rule of law and our autonomy. We need
democratic reform now.
Instead of alleviating the tension, the Hong Kong
Government has been hiding behind the police force. To make
matters worse, thugs have been involved in committing
indiscriminate violence against not just protestors but random
passersby while the police turned a blind eye to the atrocity.
What I do wish to stress is that the apparent collusion
between the Hong Kong police force and the pro-Beijing
gangsters have ignited public anger. These actions constitute a
gross violation of our universal human rights.
The police have shot protestors in the head, resulting in
at least three cases of permanent eye damage. First aiders have
been blocked when they have tried to apply treatment on the
injuries. Some have even been arrested. Once detained,
protestors have to face torture in the police stations where
access to lawyers is increasingly difficult. The ``New York
Times'' recently highlighted one story. A protestor's shoulder
joint was fractured into four pieces and detached from the bone
below. Many others suffered concussions while police were
brutally assaulting them during the arrest. They were then
transferred to the notorious San Uk Ling Holding Centre close
to the Hong Kong-China border. According to a report by Amnesty
International, subsequent rounds of torture took place in that
remote center, which is hardly accessible to the public,
journalists, or even lawyers.
Beyond physical abuse, there is a prevalent dangerous
mentality of dehumanization among the police. They frame
protestors as cockroaches and objects. This intensifies their
brutality by reducing their sympathy, which was the same
tactics applied during the Rwandan genocide. The level of
atrocity obviously is not comparable, but the essence of
dehumanization should be equally alarming.
Even though the police brutality is astonishing and the
government must be held accountable for this misbehavior, the
crux of the problem is the overreach of the Chinese Communist
Party. The international community should join hands with us
and urge Beijing to honor the Sino-British Joint Declaration of
1984, which governs the transfer of sovereignty and the
application of ``One Country, Two Systems'' in Hong Kong. China
in recent years has repeatedly declared the treaty invalid as
an excuse to not fulfill its obligations because they have been
overtly and consistently violating the instructions in the
treaty.
Earlier this week, in his address to the United Nations
General Assembly in New York, President Donald Trump
proclaimed: ``The world fully expects that the Chinese
government will honor its binding treaty made with the British
and registered with the United Nations in which China commits
to protecting Hong Kong's freedom, legal system, and democratic
ways of life. How China chooses to handle this situation will
say a great deal about its role in the world in the future.'' I
welcome this as a sign that the administration is aware of the
Chinese Government's record of breaking promises just as a new
round of trade talks have resumed.
But concrete actions are of vital importance. Yesterday,
both the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee have passed the Hong Kong Human Rights and
Democracy Act unanimously. This piece of legislation will now
move ahead for consideration on both the House and Senate
floors. I am, therefore, speaking today to seek every Senator's
support. Hong Kongers cannot stand alone in this great battle
against the largest authoritarian power in the 21st century.
As we approach the 1st of October, which marks the 70th
anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China,
I hope to remind Beijing that hearts and minds cannot be simply
bought off with heavily orchestrated ceremonies. Hong Kong
people will continue their struggle for autonomy and democracy.
You could demonstrate your bravery by honoring your own words
or else you will only convey your cowardice by committing yet
another crackdown on the people. The world of free societies is
watching you.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Law Kwun-Chung follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nathan Law Kwun-Chung
opening
This day 5 years ago, September 26, 2014, marked the beginning of
the Umbrella Movement, which saw hundreds of thousands of Hong Kongers
occupying major throughways for 3 months in pursuit of democracy. It
was our response to Chinese leaders who broke their promise of
universal suffrage that they made with both the British government and
the Hong Kong people almost four decades ago. The movement then
escalated as the police responded by firing 87 canisters of tear gas
against peaceful protesters, including myself.
The movement was ultimately unsuccessful in realizing our dreams of
a democratic society. As a student leader, I would subsequently even be
imprisoned for my role. But I distinctly remember that on the last day
of our occupation, fellow protesters hung a large banner proclaiming
``We Will Be Back'' on Harcourt Road, just outside the government
headquarters. Five years later, during this past summer of discontent,
we have made good on that promise.
purpose of the movement
Public anger in Hong Kong exploded in early June this year against
a proposed extradition law that would have allowed criminal suspects
Hong Kong to face trial in China, where the legal system is designed to
serve the interests of the ruling Communist Party. But with more than 2
million people marching in the streets, we exerted an unprecedented
amount of pressure to the government and forced Chief Executive Carrie
Lam to first suspend the bill in mid-June, before fully withdrawing it
early this month.
But our struggle has moved far beyond that. Our prosperity and
dignity as a society are built on the success of the rule of law, the
protection of human rights, and freedoms. Hong Kongers clearly
understand that these values are extremely fragile and are being eroded
by Beijing. Our autonomy is the cornerstone of the ``One Country, Two
Systems'' constitutional framework, and that is now seriously
threatened.
police violence
Instead of alleviating the tension, the Hong Kong government has
been hiding behind the police force. To make matters worse, thugs with
ties to organized crime have also been involved with inciting violence
against not just protesters but random passersby just as the police
look away. My friends Joshua Wong and Denise Ho have already explained
in greater detail these well-documented instances last week in a
different hearing held by the Congressional-Executive Commission on
China, chaired by Congressman Jim McGovern.
What I do wish to stress is that the apparent collusion between the
Hong Kong police force and pro-Beijing gangsters, facilitated by the
state apparatus, have ignited public anger. These actions constitute a
gross violation of internationally recognized human rights.
The police have shot protestors in the head, resulting in at least
three cases of permanent eye damage. First aiders have been blocked
when they tried to apply treatment on injuries; some have even been
arrested. Once detained, protesters have had to face torture in police
stations, where access to lawyers is increasingly difficult. The "New
York Times" recently highlighted one story: a protester's shoulder
joint was fractured into four pieces and detached from the bone below;
many others suffered concussions. They were then transferred to the
notorious San Uk Ling Holding Centre close to the Hong Kong-China
border, where, according to a report by Amnesty International, another
round of torture took place, far removed from the cameras.
There is a prevalent but dangerous mentality among the police: They
dehumanize protestors and frame them as ``cockroaches'' and
``objects.'' This intensifies their brutality by reducing their
sympathy, which was the same tactics applied during the Rwandan
genocide. The level of destruction, obviously, is incomparable, but at
the core of this is what to do with monopolized violence.
goals and action items
Even though the police brutality is astonishing, and the government
must be held accountable for this misbehavior, the crux of the problem
is the overreach of the Chinese Communist Party. The international
community should join hands with us and urge Beijing to honor the Sino-
British Joint Declaration of 1984, which governs the transfer of
sovereignty and the application of ``One Country, Two Systems'' in Hong
Kong. China in recent years has repeatedly declared the treaty
``invalid'' as an excuse to omit its obligations, but that is only
because they do not wish to be held accountable for what is now
happening.
Earlier this week, in his address to the United Nations General
Assembly in New York, President Donald Trump proclaimed: ``The world
fully expects that the Chinese government will honor its binding treaty
made with the British and registered with the United Nations in which
China commits to protecting Hong Kong's freedom, legal system, and
democratic ways of life. How China chooses to handle this situation
will say a great deal about its role in the world in the future.''
I welcome this as a sign that the administration is aware of the
Chinese government's record of breaking promises just as a new round of
trade talks have resumed. But concrete actions are vital. Yesterday,
both the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee have passed the Hong Kong Human Rights and
Democracy Act unanimously. This piece of legislation will now move
ahead for consideration on both the House and Senate floors. I am
therefore speaking today to seek every Senator's support. Hong Kongers
cannot stand alone in this great battle against the largest
authoritarian power in the 21st century.
As we approach October 1, which marks the 70th anniversary of the
founding of the People's Republic of China, I hope to remind Beijing
that its crackdown on the freedoms of its own people, not its heavily
orchestrated celebrations, will be watched around the world.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Law. Thank you for your
testimony, your courage, and for being here today.
Mr. Yates?
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN J. YATES, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, DC INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY, IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO
Mr. Yates. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members
of the committee. It was an honor and privilege to appear
before this subcommittee 20 years ago. What I have lost by way
of hair and other kinds of interesting experiences, hopefully I
have added with some perspective that might inform our
conversation going forward.
I think this is an incredibly important conversation, one
that I hope is national, one that I hope continues to be
bipartisan. I think this leads into one of the most important
strategic issues we face as a nation today.
I will begin basically where Nathan left off with the
remarks the President gave at the U.N. General Assembly. I
think it frames the reason why what is happening in Hong Kong
has strategic value in a way that I think can be supported on a
bipartisan basis and also among most Americans, noting that how
China chooses to handle the situation in Hong Kong tells us a
great deal about the kind of country it is becoming.
But I think there are two key tests that are right before
us. Number one, can Beijing be trusted to honor international
obligations? Number two, can the People's Republic of China
peacefully coexist with any free society? And how they are
handling the situation in Hong Kong, I would have to say, is
not reassuring on either of those tests.
In the interest of time and recognizing the full statement
has been in the record, I will move ahead into some of the
things that I think have changed in the 22 years since the
handover that affect some of the assumptions that our
government had, that some of our partners around the world had
about what to expect in this transition of sovereignty from
Britain to China.
First, China's self-image has changed profoundly over the
last 20 years. In 1997, China was a humbler nation. It had been
humbled by the massacre of its own people in Tiananmen Square,
but also by an economic recession that it needed to build out
of in the wake of international sanctions and their own
economic misdeeds. China today is not a humble nation, and that
is an interesting factor in how we might gauge our expectations
of how they see their interests in Hong Kong.
Xi Jinping is a different kind of leader. We had been led
over the years to look at the Deng Xiaoping era of reform and
opening as a more optimistic view of the direction that China
broadly was going. Socialism with Chinese characteristics has
turned into what I think is more of a cultural revolution 2.0.
And I think the militarization of propaganda and radical
nationalism is a part of Xi Jinping's leadership.
I think our fundamental assumptions about the Communist
Party were wrong. For too long, too many experts on China
proclaimed that the Communist Party is communist in name only.
I think that what we are witnessing is a party that remains
very powerful, very much in control of things not just within
its own country but influencing institutions around the world.
Mainstream assumptions about the direction China was going
to go more broadly beyond the party were wrong, frankly. We
believed that engagement and privileged access to our markets
and technology was going to liberalize Chinese society, that
the benefits would go to its people and that would have a
normative effect on the country. But those benefits have been
disproportionately acquired by the party more than its people.
We were wrong about Hong Kong too. It turns out the Hong
Kong people care about more than just business. I think it was
stunning, but also inspiring, to imagine in any polity, 2
million out of 7 million people going to the streets and
agreeing on anything in the entire world is an important
statement. But it is a reminder that clearly the Government of
China and the Government of Hong Kong touched a nerve,
something very, very sensitive, probably more so than they or
maybe even we anticipated.
I think it is incredibly important today that we focus
forward that promises made must be promises kept. It is an
important test with global consequences in Hong Kong. That
China's current leadership is willing to violate the terms of a
bilateral treaty registered at the United Nations, how can any
government or party enter into any new agreements in good faith
with this leadership?
The recommendations that I listed in my statement I am
happy to go into during questions.
I congratulate the full committee and look forward to the
President welcoming bipartisan, unanimous support for human
rights and democracy in Hong Kong. It is an important signal.
In politics it is not enough to do good. You have to be seen
doing good. And I think the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House and
hopefully the U.S. Government in its entirety is seen doing
right by the people of Hong Kong.
I would encourage a full-scale review of the evidence we
have of the efficacy of our strategy toward China. Fundamental
assumptions have been challenged. Conventional wisdom is upside
down. And I think it is important for us to have a broad
national conversation about how to right our China policy, a
policy that to me lamentably has been incredibly lazy for 50
years. No other policy toward any major issue or nation in the
world has remained roughly intact for 50 years. And yet, China
has changed and our assumptions should have changed and our
policies should adjust.
Last, I would conclude with: when you stand up for human
rights and democracy related to China, there will be people who
will accuse you of being anti-China. And all I would say is
there is no more anti-China organization on this planet than
the Communist Party of China. It is they who conducted a
revolution against their own people. It is they who conducted a
revolution against their vaunted traditions and culture. It is
they who have murdered more Chinese people in the history of
mankind than anyone else. It is they who have robbed their
people of more economic opportunity and freedom than anyone
else. There is nothing more pro-China than to stand up for
these fundamental freedoms on behalf of the people they say
they serve.
Thank you very much for your time and attention, Mr.
Chairman. I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yates follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen J. Yates
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you
for inviting me to join you today to address one of the most compelling
and consequential foreign policy challenges of our time: securing
freedom, autonomy, and human rights in Hong Kong.
Twenty years ago, this subcommittee conducted three hearings as
part of a re-examination of U.S.-China Relations. One was a critical
review of U.S. policy toward China with administration witnesses. The
other two were assessments of developments related to Hong Kong and
Taiwan involving outside experts. I was honored to play a part in those
proceedings and appreciate the privilege of revisiting these issues
with the passage of time, accumulation of evidence, and under new
leadership.
It is now 22 years since Hong Kong's handover from British to
Chinese sovereignty. Today's hearing, once again, is one of the many
ways the U.S. Congress demonstrates to Hong Kong, China, and the world
that developments in Hong Kong remain vital to U.S. interests and of
great importance to U.S. policymakers.
In the limited time available for discussion, rather than
attempting to tell others what to think on these topics, I will attempt
to emphasize how to think about these challenges and offer a few policy
recommendations for consideration.
The following statement of U.S. policy, from President Trump's
September 24 remarks at the U.N. General Assembly, are a very good
starting point for discussion:
``We are carefully monitoring the situation in Hong Kong. The world
fully expects that the Chinese government will honor its binding
treaty, made with the British and registered with the United Nations,
in which China commits to protect Hong Kong's freedom, legal system,
and democratic way of life. How China chooses to handle the situation
will say a great deal about its role in the world in the future.''
The President's statement cuts to the chase with regard to why
freedom, human rights, and autonomy in Hong Kong matters to U.S.
national interests. Of course, the well-being of the Hong Kong people
is of value in itself, but what makes the situation in Hong Kong of
great strategic consequence is the role that Hong Kong has long played
as China's window to the world, the world's window into China, and the
indicators and warnings it provides with regard to the kind of nation
China is becoming under Communist Party leadership.
The treaty obligations the President referred to are contained in
the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. Implementation of those
obligations is outlined in the People's Republic of China's 1990 Basic
Law. The ``one country, two systems'' promise made by the Chinese
government is often summed up as, ``The Hong Kong people ruling Hong
Kong with a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defense
affairs.'' Essentially, aside from new emblems and a changing of the
guard within the Hong Kong Garrison, the fundamentals of what ``makes
Hong Kong tick'' were meant to remain largely unchanged.
In addition to maintaining status as a separate customs territory,
a separate currency, and independent Common Law system, Article 45 of
the Basic Law declares, ``The ultimate aim is the selection of the
Chief Executive by universal suffrage.''
At the time of the handover and in my 1999 testimony, I shared a
few causes for concern and reasons for optimism as we observed the
initial stages of Hong Kong's transition from British to Chinese
sovereignty.
causes for concern
1) Hong Kong's Dependence on Trade. Any loss of autonomy presents
significant economic risks for Hong Kong markets and workers.
2) Limitations on Freedoms and Democracy. Free and efficient flow
of information is vital to free markets and free people. Serious
questions about Beijing's tolerance for freedom and democracy within
its ``one country, two systems'' model.
3) The People's Liberation Army. Its mission in Hong Kong is to
provide for the territory's defense, and interference in local affairs
is forbidden. However, many in Hong Kong seek protection from, not the
protection of, the PLA.
reasons for optimism
1) China's Economic Dependence on Hong Kong. Hong Kong's high level
of investment in China, and China's high level of investment in Hong
Kong, may be Hong Kong's best security guarantee.
2) Communist Party Legitimacy. China's Communist Party needs a
successful transition to bolster its own legitimacy.
3) The Taiwan Factor. An infringement on Hong Kong's promised
autonomy would have a dramatic effect on domestic and international
support for Taiwan independence.
For much of the last two decades, this somewhat conventional
framework of concerns vs. reasons for optimism held up. However, there
are strategic developments in recent years that should change how we
view the current situation.
china's self-image has changed
At the time of the handover, China was a more humble nation, in the
wake of the Tiananmen Square Massacre and the economic recession that
followed. Consistent with the imperative of getting and keeping the
economic engines running was the objective of restoring the more
positive and optimistic view of China that much of the world shared
through the 1980's until June 4, 1989. In the context of that time, the
1997 handover of sovereignty over Hong Kong was exceedingly important
to then Chairman Jiang Zemin and to the People's Republic. Jiang could
hardly afford to be the leader seen to fumble the transition and have
international treatment of China fall back to the post-Tiananmen low.
No longer. China today is not a humble nation. There is a swagger
that demands more than commands respect. Its propaganda is
sophisticated, well-funded, and many of its citizens seem to believe
it. Given the deferential treatment China's leaders have enjoyed around
the world in recent decades, they may no longer believe that failure to
deliver on promises made at the time of transition present a meaningful
risk to China's image or economy.
xi jinping is a different leader
In the 70 years of the People's Republic, China has experienced
several leadership transitions. None was more important than the one to
Deng Xiaoping. His ``reform and opening'' policies were a break with
the errors and excesses of the Mao Zedong era. They appeared to set
China on a path to catch up with and become more like the rest of the
world. The policies appeared to work and seemed irreversible. The
Tiananmen Massacre was a sobering reality check, but the Jiang Zemin
era of the 1990's represented more continuity than change relative to
Deng's policies.
Xi Jinping's leadership is markedly different in style and
substance. Appeals to nationalism have been common for decades,
especially when seeking to distract the people away from economic and
political disadvantages, there is a militance to the ethno-nationalism
that Xi has unleashed that is more akin to Mao's Cultural Revolution
than to Deng's reform and opening. It also is more dangerous and
disruptive, because now it is fueled by massive capital, modern
technology, and is international. Having broken traditional cultural
institutions, replacing them with Party control, and unleashing Han
domination over ethnic and religious minorities, China has now lost
much of the culture and diversity that made its civilization great and
worthy of study. This Cultural Revolution 2.0 ethnic chauvinism exceeds
China's boundaries, as we witness harassment of ethnically Chinese who
deign to think for themselves, and advocate on behalf of the those
threatened or oppressed by the Communist Party. As seen in Hong Kong
and elsewhere, this harassment takes many forms, from physical abuse in
person to stalking and demonization on social media.
mainstream assumptions about the communist party were wrong
Perhaps our greatest error in judgment has been failing to face the
true nature of the Communist Party, what it consistently does to the
Chinese people, what it aims to do to our friends and allies, and what
it is now doing to undermine the institutions of freedom and rule of
law even within our own country.
For too long, mainstream foreign policy and China experts suggested
the Communist Party was ``communist in name only''. It's appeal and
legitimacy, experts asserted, rests on being the only institution in
China capable of preserving stability and delivering economic growth.
Especially under Xi Jinping, the ``Communist'' is back in the CCP.
Vice President Pence's October 2018 speech at the Hudson Institute
represented an important turning point in this regard. However, it is
just a beginning of what needs to be new non-partisan national
discussion. It is the Chinese Communist Party who has been training and
deploying political warfare assets worldwide and within the United
States. Our choice is whether and how to respond, not debate whether or
not the influence operations are real.
President Trump was correct in framing the way China handles the
situation in Hong Kong as an indication of the kind of nation China is
becoming and the role it seeks in the world. I would add, respectfully,
one caveat. It tells us something about the kind of nation China is
becoming ``under the dictatorship of the Communist Party''. To date,
developments in Hong Kong raise serious doubts about the ability of the
CCP to peacefully co-exist with any free society.
mainstream assumptions about the kind of nation
china is becoming were wrong
With the end of the Cold War and advent of the internet, the ``end
of history'' was declared and the forces of freedom claimed victory.
Globalization, emerging technologies, increased trade, and integration
of China into global institutions, promised to narrow differences,
increase cooperation, minimize risk of conflict, and increase freedom
inside China.
The basic elements of U.S. engagement policies remained as they had
been for multiple administrations. We accepted the passive, but
soothing notion that if we just don't treat China as an enemy, it will
not become one. Time, modernity, and engagement would somehow compel
China to grow out of its problems and become more like the rest of the
world. We went further though. We gave China privileged access to our
capital, our market, our intellectual property. We allowed China to be
exempted from the rules and norms applied to others.
We gave China unequal access to wealth and technology, and are now
surprised to find a stronger, unreformed, illiberal Communist Party
militarizing those assets against the people and institutions who
enabled China's rise.
turns out hong kong people are very committed to rights and freedoms
For decades many of us, experts included, often have been told Hong
Kong is all about business and so are its people. With periodic
exceptions, political developments in Hong Kong rarely cross the media
or policy radar in the United States. In a region known for high
profile mass demonstrations and popular movements, most policymakers
can be forgiven for not thinking of Hong Kong as being in that same
category.
The Hong Kong people have accepted Chinese sovereignty, but they
have not accepted the attempt to compromise the autonomy and way of
life they were promised. And they have sent a remarkably clear and
broad-based signal to their leaders and to us.
Consider the strategic significance of 2 out of 7 million Hong Kong
citizens filling the streets to stand up for their rights. That's
nearly a third of the population. In U.S. terms, that would be the
equivalent of 100 million Americans. Imagine what it would take to get
100 million Americans to agree on absolutely anything, and agree it is
so important that they take to the streets in peaceful demonstrations
for 4 months. And in Hong Kong, the demonstrators (from all walks of
life) had to know their identities would be scanned and retribution
would be a real risk. Clearly the government of China and of Hong Kong
crossed a line and touched a nerve that is more sensitive and
significant than we or they were led to believe.
what happens in hong kong will not stay in hong kong
CCP Influence operations (aka political warfare) extend beyond Hong
Kong to attacks on institutions of freedom and rule of law in Taiwan,
across Asia, around the world, and within the United States. The impact
of how the Chinese and Hong Kong governments deal with the
demonstrators and their demands also will shape policies and
perceptions of China near and far.
A slogan that emerged from recent coverage was, ``Hong Kong today,
Taiwan tomorrow''. It is definitely the case that the scale of
demonstrations in Hong Kong and also the harrowing images of violence
against the demonstrators have had a significant effect on perceptions
and politics in Taiwan. For the most part, reinforcing the resolve of
the Taiwan people to choose their own way, doubting the viability of
any possible deal with the Communist Party. But with the January
elections coming in Taiwan, there also is concern that the heavy
pressure recently applied to Hong Kong is heading their way in an
attempt to influence the outcome or undermine its legitimacy.
It is important for our own national interests that those defending
against these influence operations succeed, that they do not feel like
they stand alone in doing so, and that we learn from their experience.
promises made, must be promises kept
Among the things that make the demonstrations in Hong Kong
different from those we often see elsewhere, is that the people of Hong
Kong are not asking for something new or aspirational. They are
demanding that existing autonomy be preserved and promises already made
be kept.
It is an important test, with global consequences. If China's
current leadership is willing to violate the terms of a bilateral
treaty registered with the United Nations, how can any government or
party enter into any new agreements in good faith with this leadership?
recommendations
Pass the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. In politics at
every level, it is not enough to do good, you must be seen doing good.
The 1992 Hong Kong Policy Act did a fine job of establishing a
framework for national and international discussion of U.S. interests
at stake in Hong Kong. It demonstrated to the people of Hong Kong that
they would not stand alone through this transition, and it demonstrated
to leaders in China that the United States would remain engaged and
ensure accountability. The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act is
a natural and important extension of that commitment.
Visit Hong Kong and Seek Access to Detained Demonstrators. Among
the more shocking of recent developments in Hong Kong were the violent
images of tactics used against the demonstrators. We also know that
there have been many arrests and detentions. What we have less
visibility into is the treatment of demonstrators while incarcerated.
Given the long history of U.S.-Hong Kong law enforcement cooperation,
and the high standards of professionalism we have come to expect from
our friends in Hong Kong, it would be appropriate and important for
visiting U.S. officials to seek access to detained demonstrators and
observe their conditions first-hand.
Re-Examine and Adjust China Policy to Current Realities. While I
applaud the Committee's attention given to Hong Kong and the U.S.
interests at stake there, the Hong Kong challenge is a symptom of a
larger problem. As was done in 1999, the Congress should conduct a
critical reassessment of U.S. policy toward China, question
assumptions, consider new evidence, and recommend key elements of a new
approach with potential to be sustained for successive administrations,
as has been the case with the outdated policy. The basic elements of
our longstanding engagement policy toward China were set in motion 50
years ago. No U.S. policy toward any major nation or challenge has
remained so consistent (or lazy) for so long.
Sustain Bipartisan Voice in Support of ``Davids'' vs. Chinese
Communist ``Goliath''. While a myriad of voices will claim that by
doing so you are attacking China, hurting the feelings of 1.3 billion
people, or are engaging in destructive Cold War thinking, don't let
that dissuade you. There are hundreds of millions of good Chinese
people. There are thousands of years of Chinese culture and
civilization worthy of study and respect. The Chinese Communist Party
has no claim to any of it. There is no entity less Chinese than is the
Communist Party. No entity has murdered more Chinese people than has
the Communist Party. No entity has robbed the Chinese people of more
wealth and opportunity than has the Communist Party. No entity is more
anti-China than is the Communist Party. There is nothing more pro-China
than standing with the over 2 million Hong Kong people calling for
promises made to be promises kept. There is nothing more pro-China than
standing with the over 23 million Taiwan people as they continue their
democratic progress and remain a force for good in the world. There is
nothing more pro-China than speaking up for the institutions and
communities that thrived prior to the establishment of the Communist
Party's ``New China''. Doing so not only comforts those in need of
comfort, it also strengthens every President's hand in dealing with
China's leadership.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Yates.
Dr. Martin?
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL F. MARTIN, SPECIALIST IN ASIAN AFFAIRS,
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. Martin. Chairman Gardner, Ranking Member Markey,
Senator Young, it is an honor and a privilege to testify at
today's hearing concerning the emergency situation in Hong
Kong.
At its heart, the 2019 pro-democracy protests are a
conservative movement. The protestors seek to protect and
maintain the Hong Kong they believe the Chinese and Hong Kong
governments promised that would continue to exist at least
until July 1, 2047. Their Hong Kong is a community that is
governed by the rule of law, one that respects human rights and
civil liberties. It is a society where people have freedom of
speech, thought, and assembly without fear of retaliation,
rights protected by the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984.
It is also a Hong Kong ruled by the people of Hong Kong and
will 1 day elect its Chief Executive and all the members of its
Legislative Council by universal suffrage in elections in which
any eligible resident can run as a candidate, a promise made by
China in Hong Kong's Basic Law.
For the first few years after July 1, 1997, it seemed that
China's leaders were committed to making the concept of ``One
Country, Two Systems'' work in Hong Kong, perhaps at least in
part to demonstrate to Taiwan that reunification is possible.
As time progressed, the actions of the Chinese and Hong
Kong governments have threatened freedom of speech, constricted
local political choice, and undermined Hong Kong's promised
high degree of autonomy. Since 1997, many people in Hong Kong
believe that if they did not rise up in protest, the city they
wish to protect and maintain will disappear.
In 2003, an estimated half million people rallied in
opposition to a proposed national security bill that they felt
would curtail their civil liberties.
In 2014, thousands of protestors occupied the streets of
Hong Kong's Admiralty, Causeway Bay, and Mong Kok Districts for
nearly 3 months, an event known as the Umbrella Movement, to
object to a decision by the Chinese Government that the
protestors thought would unduly restrict the nomination process
for the chief executive.
Now in 2019, more than 1 million people have risen up to
oppose proposed legislation that, for the first time, would
have permitted the extradition of a criminal suspect from Hong
Kong to mainland China to face what Nathan just said and many
in Hong Kong consider an unfair and corrupt court system.
The Chinese Government views the current situation in Hong
Kong from a very different perspective. For China's leaders,
the United Kingdom acquired Hong Kong illegitimately under the
terms of unequal treaties tied to the Opium Wars. To them, Hong
Kong's return to Chinese sovereignty in 1997 redressed a past
injustice and restored the nation's territorial integrity. To
them, as article 1 of the Basic Law states, ``the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the
People's Republic of China.''
China's state media have portrayed the 2019 protests as
part of an international plot led by the United States to
undermine China's authority over Hong Kong and encourage
separatism. As such, China's leaders see the protests as a
threat to national sovereignty and integrity. As a result, the
Chinese Government has pressed the Hong Kong Government to use
greater force to redress this threat and end the protests.
For the Hong Kong Government, all four of its chief
executives to date have struggled with balancing their
obligations to the Chinese Government and to the people of Hong
Kong. In the end, all four arguably have been more beholden to
the Chinese Government than to their fellow Hong Kongers.
These fundamentally different perspectives of the
protestors and the Government of Hong Kong and China do not
offer a ready solution for the current crisis. For now, it
appears the protests will continue until either the protestors'
five demands are met or more dramatic action is taken by the
Chinese and Hong Kong governments.
There are many other issues I could have brought up today
in my testimony, but for sake of time, I wanted to limit it to
what I thought was the fundamental issue, the key differences
of perspective between the protestors and the Hong Kong and
Chinese government.
Chairman Gardner, Ranking Member Markey, Senator Young,
thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I am
pleased to respond to any questions you and other people may
have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Martin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael F. Martin
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Dr. Martin. And thank you
again, all three, for your testimony today.
Mr. Law, you and I have had the occasion to meet before,
and I cannot tell you how grateful I am for your presence here
before this committee and before the Congress of the United
States and the people of this country who stand with Hong Kong
and the autonomy that you fight for and the freedoms that you
strive for.
The first visit that I made to Hong Kong several years ago,
President Xi was a relatively new leader in China. Some of the
civil society leaders that I had met with at the time had said
things to the effect of, well, perhaps the anti-corruption
campaign that President Xi is leading or perhaps some of the
policies that he is enacting are because he is a real reformer
and that he is cracking down in this way so that he will have
the freedom and the ability to make real reforms that could
turn China away from an authoritarian rise or away from the
society that they were locked into perhaps and they would build
more freedoms.
And I think it is pretty clear after activities that we
have seen throughout China, around China, throughout the
region, in Hong Kong, as they treat Taiwan as well, that that
is not the case, that this is not a reformer leader, that this
is not an opening leader for more opportunity of freedom and
autonomy, human rights, and the dignity that goes along with
every person in this world, let alone in China.
And so the discussions we had on Hong Kong led to
discussions about what makes this work in Hong Kong. How will
Hong Kong survive under this leadership of President Xi and the
new governance, the new direction, the more authoritarian
direction of China?
When I met with U.S. businesses, they would talk about the
independence of the judiciary. When I talked to civil society,
they would talk about the independence of the judiciary. And as
we saw indexes of freedom or indexes of economic freedoms or
personal liberties or news stories of book owners being
kidnapped and people taken from Hong Kong into China, and as we
saw the news of those activities increase and the decline of
freedoms multiply, people would always go back to the freedom
and independence of the judiciary in Hong Kong. And it just
seems to me, looking in from the United States what was
happening in Hong Kong, that the extradition bill that was put
forward seemed to strike at the very core of that independence.
Mr. Law, do you agree with that or am I misreading it? And
how should I think about what I learned when I was there and
how it applies today and the protests and the work that you
have taken?
Mr. Law. Thanks for the question, Chairman Gardner.
I think your observation is precise about what is happening
in Hong Kong. I think what is happening in Hong Kong is not an
isolated case. It is the all-around policy by China. If you
look at expanding the concentration camp in Xinjiang, you look
at the cultural wipeout in Tibet, you look at intimidation to
Taiwan, and all sorts of civic society cracking down in
mainland China, you will see the same process and the same way
of annihilation of free society and free values are happening
in China.
And the way that they treat these regions are not only
treating their internal affairs, but they are also having an
authoritarian expansionist angle. They are treating the world
by using like Belt and Road Initiative and all sorts of
geopolitical influence to get some other places into a more
authoritarian way. And we could see that trend from a lot of
indexes and a lot of reports from INGO which looked into that
issue.
So I do believe that the trend in Hong Kong is definitely
an issue for Hong Kong people because it threatens our freedom
and threatens rule of law, and these are the cornerstones of
our prosperity. But also, it is an issue that the world has to
join hands and face because the way that they expand and export
authoritarianism definitely hampers the spread of democracy and
result in the revival of authoritarianism and the recess of
democracy.
So I do believe what is happening in Hong Kong is a great
symbol of how China treats the world order and free societies.
And I do believe that what is happening in Hong Kong and we at
the forefront of the clash of authoritarian and liberal
values--it needs more attention and help and concrete support
from the free society. So I think the observation is accurate,
and I think it should be transformed into actions in countering
the kind of encroachment in Hong Kong's free society.
Senator Gardner. You mentioned the Hong Kong Act, and we
have talked about the Hong Kong Act that passed both the House
and Senate committees yesterday. What more would you like to
see from the United States to address what you just mentioned?
Mr. Law. Well, first of all, I do hope that it can be
passed in the floors of the House and Senate. And I think Hong
Kong people are extremely excited about it because it is a way
that the global community, especially the U.S., showing support
to Hong Kong. Sometimes we feel isolated because of the
tightened control of China, and sometimes people see Hong Kong
as an economic entity but not a place that protests and fight
for democracy took place.
But for now, we demonstrate our determination of fighting
democracy and autonomy. And our demand is just so humble
because we just want China to do what they have promised, and
the way they treat Hong Kong, as President Trump just said,
will set an example of how they treat the other international
treaties. So I do believe that we have a high moral ground and
necessary helping hands should be delivered from the other
places like the U.S. or even the U.N. and some other
international organizations.
As for the bill, of course, the bill has--a huge portion of
that bill is to sanction the officials who are responsible for
the encroachment in Hong Kong. And I do believe it plays an
important role. Just look at the kids and daughters of our
senior officials in Hong Kong. They are not even studying in
Hong Kong. They just kind of mess up Hong Kong's system and
then take their daughters and kids overseas and let them to be
British or U.S. citizens where they reap all the fruits, all
the rewards from China giving them in the expense of Hong
Kong's future. So I do believe that this set of sanctions is
kind of a way to warn them that you cannot get it both ways.
For China and for the officials in Hong Kong, you cannot get it
both ways. If you are eroding Hong Kong's autonomy, you cannot
be rewarded by doing so because you are violating a lot of
cornerstones of our society.
So I do think that even though the bill is passed, the
administration should take the responsibility actively enacting
this portion of the bill in order to send a signal to them.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Law.
Senator Markey?
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 allows but does not
require the United States to treat Hong Kong differently than
China. And I was proud to vote for that act as a Member of the
House of Representatives. But I am growing increasingly
concerned about Hong Kong's level of autonomy and what that
means for U.S. policy going forward.
So, Dr. Martin, what degree of autonomy does Hong Kong
currently have, and what are the chances that Hong Kong can
increase its autonomy in the coming months and years, given the
fact that it is a 50-year deal and we are now 22 years into
that process?
Dr. Martin. Senator Markey, a very good question and one
that is very difficult to answer.
I would say different aspects of Hong Kong's autonomy
remains relatively high, but other parts less so. There have
been a number of actions taken by the Chinese central
government, for example, interpreting the Basic Law, or what
they call interpreting the Basic Law that ends up restricting
the governance of Hong Kong, one of which was utilized to
disqualify Nathan Law and five other members of the Legislative
Council who were elected by adding provisions in the Basic Law,
regarding how to take oaths. So you have a number of areas in
terms of the legal environment where the actions of the Chinese
central government have reduced the autonomy of Hong Kong.
A concern right now in the protest movement is to what
extent are the Hong Kong police force is reporting to the chief
executive, Carrie Lam, or are they reporting to other
authorities. There are a lot of rumors floating around in the
current environment, but there are some signs that basically
the Hong Kong police force are acting with a high degree of
independence and may be reporting to authorities in the liaison
office in Hong Kong, as well as in Shenzhen or even in the
central government in China.
And one other aspect where you see an erosion of autonomy
is the involvement of the liaison office in the political
environment in Hong Kong. It is quite well known in Hong Kong
that the liaison office communicates to political figures in
the business community about who they want to be the chief
executive, who they want elected in district council elections,
which are coming up in November. Joshua Wong hopes to run, but
it is not clear he will be able to run. So the liaison office
is increasingly active in local politics.
There is a provision in the Basic Law that says no agency
in the Chinese central government can be involved in the local
internal affairs of Hong Kong. So that is another area where
people point to violations.
Senator Markey. So let me ask you this, Mr. Law. On August
30th, I wrote to Mark Zuckerberg asking why Facebook runs
targeted ads for state controlled media organizations,
including those in mainland China, that dehumanize and spread
disinformation about protestors. Unlike Twitter, which changed
its policy during the protest, Facebook still at this very
moment and which it confirmed in its responses to my letter--I
sent them a letter on August 30th. And in their response to me,
they said that they do accept money from Chinese state-run
outlets that use its platform to cast protestors as rioters and
as extremists.
So, Mr. Law, what impact do you think Chinese state media
content spread on social platforms like Facebook might have on
these protests and on the reaction to them?
Mr. Law. Well, thanks for the question, Senator Markey.
And I do believe that the way Chinese are manipulating
propaganda in terms of dehumanizing the protestors--the protest
is overwhelming because I think this is also an ideology that
affects not only the citizens who are in support of the pro-
Beijing camp but also the law enforcement. So you could have a
lot of claims. They are proclaiming the protestors as
cockroaches or even the reporters. Therefore, they legitimize
their use of force or even those obviously violating the
protocol that they should follow in order to do their
crackdown. And that is what Carrie Lam relies on.
So I do believe for social medias and any other advertising
companies should be aware of that tactic because sometimes if
you are trying to be neutral and get an advertisement for some
other different sides of the organization, you may actually be
helping them in respect of certain ideology. So I think the
dehumanization that the police force has been using just like
the Rwanda genocide had adopted, even though the degree is
incomparable, but the essence is the same.
Senator Markey. But what do you want Facebook to do?
Mr. Law. Well, of course, like Facebook and Twitter have
been taking measures to delete accounts recently orchestrated
by the Chinese Government. And I applaud for these measures. I
hope they continue to do so. And if they find any advertisement
that is spreading hate speech, disinformation, also
dehumanization, well, discourse toward the protestors and Hong
Kong people, they should take prompt action to stop it.
Senator Markey. Mr. Yates or Mr. Martin, what role is
social media playing in this, especially American companies, in
their complicity in any of these activities? We know in Burma
it happens, but here in Hong Kong as well. So if you could just
give us your views on that.
Mr. Yates. Well, Senator, I think it is an incredibly
important issue given that these were supposed to be tools of
liberation. The advent of the Internet, social media, all these
things were supposed to connect people in positive ways, allow
for free expression. What we see in the Communist Party of
China is a very effective use of the tools of liberation, now
militarized into tools of control and intimidation. And so,
trying to find policies and technical ways to combat
oppressors' abilities to use these tools against free people I
think is a massive challenge, and we need to be pressing those
companies to be a part of it.
What is happening in Hong Kong today on the use of those
tools is going to be used in Taiwan in their upcoming election
in January where there is definitely going to be an attempt to
try to manipulate information and possibly undermine the
legitimacy of an election outcome. Those same tools very well
could be deployed in the United States over the course of 2020
and try to shape American minds. The most offensive image among
many I think out of Hong Kong in recent times was a very
slickly produced video that compared the protestors in Hong
Kong to the Taliban and suggested that they were terrorists.
And so, they have money, technology, and social platforms that
are weaponizing propaganda in ways I do not think we have ever
seen.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Senator Young?
Senator Young. Mr. Law, thank you for your courage, for
your activism, for your presence here today.
Let me begin by offering a message once again to the
Chinese Communist Party leadership. You covet strength. You
covet control. You covet stability. You have a pattern of
broken promises, however. And I believe that your pattern of
one-sided free trade, of predatory economic practices, your
effort to export the tools of population control in Orwellian
fashion through your Belt and Road Initiative, your human
rights transgressions--I predict that by continuing to expose
these practices by shining a bright light on them, a
credibility gap has not only--it has not only been exposed, but
it will continue to grow. And the Chinese leadership will 1 day
fall into it.
And so your presence here today, Mr. Law, I think is really
important, as is your continued activism. My only fear, anxiety
is that you and others in fairly short order may not enjoy the
political space, the freedom to continue exposing these
practices, these violations of your human rights.
There is legislation, as I know you are aware and you have
urged my colleagues and I to support, for us here in the U.S.
Senate that has been offered by Senator Rubio. It would
prohibit the State Department from denying a visa because the
individual applying has been arrested or detained or had the
Hong Kong or Chinese government take action against him or her.
I believe we should welcome Hong Kongers who believe that
rights are not the gifts of government but instead they are
gifts from God or a creator or whatever one's faith, tradition,
or philosophical perspective might be. I believe that we should
welcome Hong Kongers who understand the job of our government
leaders is to represent and serve but not to rule.
And so going beyond Senator Rubio's legislation, which I
really believe will pass, I hope will pass, I wonder whether
creation of a special immigration status for any besieged Hong
Kongers seeking to come to the United States of America would
be of interest to those protesting so that they too might enjoy
living in freedom and advancing democratic values but also so
that they too might work with others, other likeminded
individuals in the United States of America who might be
mobilized to contest Chinese authoritarianism and the threat it
poses to all democratic, peaceful societies worldwide.
And so I ask you, do you believe that creation of this sort
of special immigration status might be of interest to many Hong
Kongers?
Mr. Law. Well, thank you for the question, Senator Young,
and encouragement and a great suggestion.
I do believe that the special status or criteria for Hong
Kong protestors or people who believe in universal values as
the others in this room could, indeed, boost the morale and
actually help Hong Kong people because if you look at the way
the government has been prosecuting and arresting the
protestors, basically they do it in an arbitrary fashion and do
it to intimidate people not to go out on the street and
conflict with the police and speak up for the justice. So I do
believe that if such a recognition from the U.S., especially in
terms of supporting the people who stand up for their justice
in Hong Kong, indeed help them, and the protestors in Hong Kong
would welcome this measure.
Senator Young. Well, so many of the leaders, the Communist
leaders, in Hong Kong, as you indicated, send their own
children to the United States, to the United Kingdom to enjoy
our freedoms, to be educated, and so forth, and they will
continue to do so. And so it strikes me as right and proper
that we give strong consideration to affording similar
dispensation to those Hong Kongers who are prepared to put
everything on the line, their lives, their fortunes, their
sacred honor in order to defend the very values that our
country is trying to uphold.
I also know that there are some who may prefer to continue
to stay in Hong Kong to march for freedom and democratic
values, and I certainly would be respectful of that.
But with your direction, I think we will work on that
initiative. I appreciate the feedback.
On September 9th, Mr. Law, the ``Global Times,'' a Chinese
news publication said that the mainland is set to defend Hong
Kong. Meanwhile, media reports in China have characterized the
protestors as violent radicals and mobsters--and you indicated
in your testimony they have even called them cockroaches,
dehumanizing them--while praising the police for showing great
professionalism and restraint. This seems to be setting the
stage for a larger crackdown, a more serious one.
So if mainland China moves in to suppress Hong Kongers, I
am concerned that we could witness something on the scale of or
something that is on par with the gravity of the Tiananmen
Square massacre, which I think has been scrubbed from the
Internet for most of those who live in mainland China.
What will the next steps by mainland China tell you about
Hong Kong's future and the mainland's ambitions?
Mr. Law. Well, of course, I do think that there are signals
of them showing a tougher stance on Hong Kong by deploying
troops near to the Hong Kong border and sending all the
messages online and intimidating Hong Kong people.
But I do think that Hong Kongers do play an important role
in the economy, especially Hong Kong is the largest port of
getting money in, getting FDI in China, and getting the money
out of China, and also it provides, well, supports for the Belt
and Road Initiative and all sorts of things that could help
China to catalyze it. So I do believe that they will be making
a very cautious decision in terms of sending troops in Hong
Kong to create another scene that resembles the world about
1989.
But it does not mean that they will stop the suppression.
It will happen in a more subtle way. For example, the police
force will be expanding their power and torturing all the
protestors in a place that no camera will capture them and in a
place that no hospital will be willing to kind of get treatment
on them, et cetera because the protestors are too afraid of
going to the hospital and being arrested, and so on.
So I do believe there is a potential crackdown took place
in the future, especially it is getting close to the 1st of
October which the Chinese Government will be celebrating its
70th year anniversary, and the crackdown will get much more
severe. So I do believe that is an important date that we
should put focus on and closely monitor how China acts and how
the state apparatus in Hong Kong operates.
Senator Young. Thank you.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator Young.
Mr. Law, I think one of the more alarming images that I saw
in the heart of some of the protests a few weeks ago--I was at
a company in Colorado that does a lot of spatial imaging, and
one of the employees showed me an image of basically a buildup.
It looked like a military buildup on the border of Hong Kong.
And you saw what looked like, at least from space, armored
personnel carriers almost in a stadium of some kind that looked
like they were ready to invade.
So a couple of questions. Do you still see that kind of
buildup along the border? Do you still see the shocking videos
that we saw in the United States of these white-shirted thugs
at a train station beating people randomly as they went by, as
the police just simply ignored what was happening? Do you still
see those kinds of things? Is it random? Is the force still
there, the pressure still there?
Mr. Law. Well, thank you for the question, Chairman
Gardner.
The presence of the collusion of thugs and police is still
very obvious. And from the recent protests, we can see signs of
the gangsters attacking the protestors. And when the police
were approaching, they were just guarding those gangsters out
and arresting those who were under attack by them.
So I do believe that the government has been outsourcing
violence to these gangsters in order to intimidate the
protestors and assault them. And that is the way that Hong Kong
has turned into a police state which is a true source of
violence, no matter one or informal one, are actually targeting
the protestors and harming them.
So I do believe it is a worrying phenomenon, and that is
exactly how the Chinese Government wanted to manipulate the
situation of Hong Kong. Obviously, a lot of these gangsters--
well, in the morning, a cross-border bus drove them to the
site. And after they attacked, they just drove back to mainland
China. There is no way to trace them. There is no way to follow
them and that is under the allocation of the Chinese Communist
Party. So I do believe that is a worrying trend, and we should
be aware of that.
Senator Gardner. Thank you.
Mr. Yates, in your testimony in your recommendations, you
talked about visiting Hong Kong, and you talked about seeking
access to detained demonstrators. Mr. Law talked about
torturing protestors.
What do we know about how many demonstrators may be
detained? What can we do? What should we do? Is there a role
that the United States or other international organizations
could play in this to make sure that these protestors, these
detained demonstrators are okay?
Mr. Yates. Thank you, sir.
I do believe that there is a role to play. Some of your
colleagues and maybe some of you in due course will visit Hong
Kong and its near abroad. When you do, we have decades of
cooperation with Hong Kong authorities. We have invested lots
of money in joint training and other kinds of activities over
the years. And there are many, many truly professional and
respectable people who work in that government. Some of them
even risk their fortunes joining the demonstrators. And so, I
think there is value in going and engaging.
I do not have a good gauge on the total numbers of those
arrested. There seems to be places they are being held and
questioned in ways that are not consistent with the Hong Kong
we had thought we were dealing with. I think that it is
important to seek access to these facilities. There are some
named ones. I would be happy to share a list that I have been
given that are worth going and seeing.
Of course, we have experience in other parts of the world
where there are political prisoners being held, and I do
consider people who have peacefully protested to be political
prisoners if they are being incarcerated.
So, I do think that there is a role. I would encourage all
Members to avail themselves of it to the extent time allows,
and I think that we may actually find some allies within the
Hong Kong Government who want transparency and accountability
too.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Yates. If you could provide
that list, please do so.
Mr. Law, any idea of what you are seeing, demonstrators
that are jailed? You mentioned a concern about their treatment.
Mr. Law. Well, obviously, a lot of torture happening on
them out of camera, and it relies on the international news
organization or INGO's like Amnesty International to do a
thoughtful investigation on it. I do believe that this evidence
should be valued and should be brought up no matter to the
floor of the Congress or any other places in the U.S. that
could actually be evidence to apply some pressure to the Hong
Kong Government and also the law enforcement.
And this could actually be evidence if in the future there
is any possible sanction on them. Well, that could create a
kind of atmosphere for them to let them know that even though
those things that they have done without surveillance but
actually people could speak on that. They will be punished for
their misbehaviors of what they have been doing. So I do
believe that other than, well, helping them by these kind of
measures that we can take.
Also, for the U.S. what I have just mentioned and Senator
Young has just mentioned about the visa and about any status or
academically we provide more room for Hong Kong students who
are suffering from this kind of suppression, these are great
measures to be taken.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Law.
Dr. Martin, the Basic Law, the Sino-British Joint
Declaration stipulate with regard to Hong Kong's status and how
it is going to be treated, the way their relationship will
work. As an international treaty, is the Joint Declaration
enforceable at the United Nations or in other international
venues?
Dr. Martin. As an international treaty, it is registered
with the United Nations, and its duration till 2047. My
understanding from lawyers is it still remains in effect.
In terms of enforceable, it does not have any teeth in it.
There is no provision for punishment for either the United
Kingdom or China for not abiding by the terms of it, but there
is certainly, as Mr. Yates pointed out, the international
pressure that could be brought against China for not living up
to its commitments, in terms of the treaty.
If I may make a quick comment.
Senator Gardner. Please.
Dr. Martin. You asked about the number of prisoners. I
believe we are approaching about 1,500 people that have been
arrested. The numbers go up every day. There were just a few
arrested last night in Sha Tin.
And in terms of locations, the detention center that Nathan
referred to later, is one that is normally used for illegal
immigrants. It is not one that is used for Hong Kong residents.
It does not have closed circuit TV capacity so that when those
being detained are being visited by police officers or any
enforcement officers, there are no records of what is taking
place.
Like I said earlier, rumors are quite rampant in Hong Kong.
There have been reports and allegations of abuse, torture, and
I fear to say even worse that is taking place at that center.
Some members of the democratically elected Legislative
Counsel, that is, members who were elected by the general
public, have asked to go to that detention center as, for
example, U.S. Members of Congress would like to go to detention
centers in the United States. The Hong Kong Government has
denied access. They said, no, you may not attempt to see. So I
would encourage, for example, if you want to find out more
about it and if you go to Hong Kong, asking to see where these
people are being held is one of the things you could consider.
Senator Gardner. Is there a way for members of the
Legislative Council to request perhaps a United Nations
delegation to inspect or to attend these detention centers as
well?
Dr. Martin. Can they do so? I believe that would be within
the authority of the Legislative Council in Hong Kong. They
operate under very different rules. Most legislation in Hong
Kong is introduced by the chief executive and the secretary. It
is a parliamentary system. So there are strict restrictions on
the type of legislation LegCo members--shorthand--can
introduce.
Right now they are not in session. Part of the reason they
are not in session is the chambers were damaged on July 1 of
this year in a demonstration. But it is also traditionally the
time when they are in recess.
So in terms of this extradition bill, it has not been
formally withdrawn yet. All that Carrie Lam has said is that
she will submit such a withdrawal request to the Legislative
Council when they reconvene in October. So I would also say we
should be watching to see whether or not that takes place and
what exactly transpires when that occurs.
Senator Gardner. Thank you.
Senator Markey?
Senator Markey. Thank you.
So 2 days ago President Trump at the U.N. said, we are
carefully monitoring the situation in Hong Kong. The world
fully expects that the Chinese Government will honor its
binding treaty it made with the British and registered with the
United Nations in which China commits to protect Hong Kong's
freedom, legal system, and democratic way of life. How China
chooses to handle the situation will say a great deal about its
role in the world in the future.
But previously, President Trump referred to the protest as,
quote, ``riots'' and said that China, quote, ``will have to
deal with that themselves.''
So, Mr. Law, what is the consequence of such a mixed signal
coming from the President of the United States?
Mr. Law. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Obviously, we noticed that there is like kind of a volatile
stance taking place by the administration. And even though
there are some times President Trump has been speaking up for
Hong Kong, but sometimes the messages are quite confused in a
certain degree of matters.
So I do believe that as a force in the council and in
Congress, there has been a huge momentum pushing forward the
Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, and it should create
a momentum that is actually not only in the Congress but in the
administration side. They should take prompt actions in order
to handle the situation of Hong Kong and give support of the
people of Hong Kong who are fighting for human rights and
justice.
So I do believe that even though sometimes we get a mixed
message, but as long as we follow the measures that we have
registered, we will kind of make it into a law, and then we
monitor the application of the administration, urge them to do
in accordance to what is happening in Hong Kong and the
violation of the international treaty that China has been
having. And I do believe that the U.S. could be a strong
support not only for Hong Kong but also for the liberal world
and for the justice and human rights that we all share. So I do
think adding more exposure of the Hong Kong issue in the
Congress and in the society as a whole indeed helps to push
forward to that direction and also sending a delegation from
the Congress to the San Uk Ling holding center that we
mentioned or generally to observe the situation of Hong Kong to
feed back to the American public and to the global community
could also be a helping hand for them to realize and understand
the situation of Hong Kong.
Senator Markey. Let me ask you this.
We are 22 years now into the agreement between the Chinese
Government and Great Britain. And at the end of that 50-year
period, which would be 2047, Hong Kong would fully be part of
China. That is the agreement. So we are now 22 years into. We
are now 44 percent of the way through this process toward 2047.
So what does it mean, from your perspective, as a preview
of coming attractions that China is now through Carrie Lam
ordering these kind of actions in terms of what your greatest
fears might be as to what will happen as an erosion of rights
before we reach 2047 where, under the agreement, Hong Kong is
fully part of China?
Mr. Law. Well, I do believe that we have to send a strong
signal to the Chinese Communist Party that in the Hong Kong
issue, they cannot get it in both ways. The special economic
status of Hong Kong is kind of being determined by the Hong
Kong Policy Act of 1992 in the U.S. Congress, and the other
parts of the world followed. And if China has had a mind of
kind of stripping out all the contents of the ``One Country,
Two Systems'' but remaining the shell of it in order to make an
illusion that Hong Kong operates well and autonomy is still
being preserved, then I think they are making huge mistakes
because Hong Kong people clearly understand our autonomy has
been stripped away. And we urge the Chinese Communist Party to
know that if they want to destroy Hong Kong's democracy and
autonomy, that it cannot just simply reap its economic outcome.
Senator Markey. So thank you. Again, thank you for your
courage.
Mr. Martin, what do you think this means in terms of the
deadline arriving now in a relatively brief period of time from
a historical perspective?
Dr. Martin. The Joint Declaration stipulates that Hong Kong
will be treated by China in a particular way for 50 years, but
it makes no clear statement about what happens at the end of
that 50-year period.
Back when I was living in Hong Kong on July 1, 1997 and I
saw the Union Jack come down for the last time, many of us were
hopeful but concerned about what the future would bring for a
city that we know and lived in at the time. At that time, I
think the feeling was that over time there will be changes and
that by 2047, there will be full democracy in Hong Kong, as
promised in the Basic Law, not in the Joint Declaration, and
that things will have changed, as Mr. Yates had described, in
mainland China so that the situation would be so different than
what it was at that time, that it would not be particularly
problematic.
Events of the last few years I think indicate that maybe
that was overly optimistic and that, for example, this pledge
for universal suffrage and choosing the chief executive and all
the members of the LegCo by universal suffrage is not going to
be provided in a manner that people like Nathan and others feel
allows them true democracy. So they talk about genuine
universal suffrage. What they want is democracy, the right to
vote for candidates of their choice.
And another element that I hear among the young people is
self-determination. They want to be able to have a say in their
own future. In 1984 when the Joint Declaration was signed,
during that negotiation process, there were no Hong Kong
representatives at the table. It was Chinese officials and
British officials negotiating. And ever since then, anytime
there has been a critical issue, the people of Hong Kong feel
like--many of them, not all of them--their voice is not being
heard.
So by 2047, I will be quite elderly and I do not know if I
will be around to see what transpires. But what Nathan and
Joshua Wong and the younger people are saying is they want to
have self-determination. They want democracy.
Senator Markey. So I went with President Clinton in July
1998 on his trip to China for 10 days. So I was with him during
that trip. One of the leaders said to us privately that they
were going to follow the model of perestroika in Russia at that
time--this is pre-Putin--to open up more opportunities for
entrepreneurial activity inside of their country and that they
believed that perestroika made a lot of sense for China as
well, but that they disagreed with the Soviet Union, with the
Russians with regard to glasnost, openness that that had
created from their perspective a mess inside of Russia. And
they will not make that mistake. They will follow perestroika
but not glasnost, restructuring of the economy but not
openness.
So that was their plan beginning in 1997-1998 that they
would move in that direction. And as Mr. Yates has said, they
have now lost all humility and they are actually implementing
their anti-glasnost policy, not just in Hong Kong but across
the entirety of their country. That is at the heart of what
they are doing.
So what from your perspective is the goal that China has
for Hong Kong in 2047? What do they want to be the conditions
under which the people in Hong Kong are living? Any of you.
Mr. Yates. My presumption is, number one, they fully intend
for the Communist Party of China to remain in total control of
China by 2047. And I think that if we look back at the
handover, at the close of the Cold War, it was inconceivable
that a Communist Party was going to endure, even get stronger
over time. But as far as their plans, they look for a ``One
Country, One System''. They look for party first, ethnicity
second, and then whatever is in their constitution----
Senator Markey. But for Hong Kong, what does that mean?
Mr. Yates. Hong Kong would be a part of one single Chinese
system under communist control.
Senator Markey. And their system would be the same as the
system in Beijing or Shanghai----
Mr. Yates. Correct. The one they impose upon everybody
else. No more special status.
Senator Markey. No special status, no special rights, no
special freedoms.
Mr. Yates. If we look at just the images of the pro-
Beijing, pro-communist agitators, not just in Hong Kong, they
have attacked people in Australia who are demonstrating. They
have attacked people in Canada who are demonstrating. There is
a virulent nationalism that is spreading in China where they
feel entitled and demanding of respect.
Senator Markey. Do they feel that under the agreement that
the people of Hong Kong have no choice but to live under rigid
communist control by 2047? Do you think there is any wiggle
room in that agreement toward achieving that goal?
Mr. Yates. I think the Chinese Government has willfully
disregarded the treaty as even being a treaty. And their
decision tree, it seems to me, is first if you are ethnically
Chinese, you owe your allegiance to us, whether you are a
citizen of the United States, the United Kingdom, or anywhere
else. And out of duty to us, you then must follow and respect
the leaders of the party. We have a leader of the most populous
authoritarian government who is afraid of Winnie the Pooh. If
there are people who post images of Winnie the Pooh on social
media associating with him, they literally get locked up.
Senator Markey. So for Mr. Law, he has essentially 28 years
to go--26 years to go before all of these freedoms are gone,
and you will be alive, Mr. Law. You will be living in that
world. So perhaps you could speak to how concerned you are
about what is going to unfold if Mr. Yates is 100 percent
correct.
Mr. Law. Well, 2047 has always been a landmark for Hong
Kong and a question that has been hanging in our hearts and
minds about what the future of Hong Kong will be so that we
propose a self-determination direction which we wanted to
decide our own future. But, obviously, China has been so rigid
about it.
But I do believe that we have got 20-something years to
change China. I do not think China is unchangeable. We need to
have faith on that even though the past engagement policy they
have been adopting seems like kind of futile in terms of
transforming it into a more democratic nation. But I do believe
that a change of China-U.S. policy and also the struggle of
Hong Kong indeed help opening up China, and the way China has
been supported by nationalism and economic success--these
factors are declining. They are on a downturned roll of their
own history. So I do believe that in that critical moment of
time, if we join hands together, we can actually make something
out of it.
Senator Markey. So what is the role that you envision for
the United States and other western nations in helping to
advance your vision in terms of our relationship with China?
Mr. Law. Well, of course, I do think that for a certain
degree that the way we treat China has to see it as an expander
of the authoritarian regime. They are actually eating up the
fruits of democracy and sending out a totalitarian order to the
rest of the world. So we have to be aware of that not only just
to make business to them, but we need to have a value-
orientated policy to them.
Senator Markey. Are you concerned that Donald Trump may be
subordinating human rights issues to his trade deal objectives
in the short run, and then that sends a signal to China that
they can continue with business as usual with regard to Hong
Kong?
Mr. Law. Well, obviously, we do not know the results of the
trade talk. But I do believe that if the administration is
sending a strong signal on Hong Kong's protests, supporting
them firmly, and urging Beijing to solve that puzzle, solve
that question, solve that problem with a civilized way to honor
their own words, I do believe it is a good start to show the
world that, well, U.S. and China or the world and China--we are
not just talking about business. We are talking about human
rights and the things that matter to the billion population in
mainland China and billions of population in the world. So I do
believe that this is the direction to go, and I do believe that
by the time of 2047, there is a possibility that we are no
longer living in an authoritarian country.
Senator Markey. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you for
your courage, and thank all of you for expert testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Mr. Yates, you also talked about our China strategy and how
we rethink this. Senator Markey and I have passed and signed
into law by the President a bill called the Asia Reassurance
Initiative Act that builds on three things: national security;
economic opportunity; rule of law, human rights, and democracy.
And the state and foreign operations appropriations bill that
is out of committee puts about $2.55 billion for the effort and
the implementation of ARIA.
I would love to get your feedback on that. Some of these
resources will be used to help talk about democracy, to help
with human rights conditions, to pursue awareness and civil
society opportunities throughout Asia, and perhaps we can find
ways to utilize here as well with this new opportunity through
ARIA.
Just a final thought and final question. Mr. Yates, I will
direct it to you. If anybody wants to reply. What message, what
lesson--and you mentioned a little bit of it earlier--does
Taiwan take from what is happening in Hong Kong today?
Mr. Yates. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Very, very clearly there have been different histories for
the people of Taiwan and the people of Hong Kong. Being a
British colony is different than being a Japanese colony living
under martial law and then coming up with your own democracy in
Taiwan. There are different perspectives.
And I would not characterize the relationship between the
two peoples of having been particularly close over the decades.
I think that perceptions and connections have profoundly
changed in the images that the people of Taiwan have watched in
recent months. I think there have been profound lessons
learned. Number one, talk within Taiwan political circles about
whether one can make a deal with the Communist Party of China
to buy peace, even temporarily, is something that most voters
of Taiwan are no longer willing to accept. It has fundamentally
changed some of those perceptions. I think that the people of
Taiwan feel a camaraderie, even are inspired by the courage of
the people they have seen in Hong Kong stand up.
And I think it is important to note that these people know
that when they go to the streets--and while I admire the young
people for doing it, we have a large cross section of Hong
Kong's entire population doing it. They know that their images
are scanned. They know that their identities are compromised.
They know that they do not necessarily have to face a
Tiananmen-like crackdown, that in due time of the government's
own choosing, they may face some kind of retribution. So I
think the people of Taiwan have truly admired the courage that
they have witnessed of the people of Hong Kong to stand up.
I think if Beijing was true about its professed desire for
unification with Taiwan, it is going about it all wrong. What
they are doing I just think reinforces the determination of the
people of Taiwan to go their own way. And to the extent that
there are people in the American policy community or elsewhere
that think that that is a problem, they need to work with their
friends in Beijing to change what has been done because no
force has driven the Taiwan people further away from some
affinity toward China than have the actions by the Communist
Party and its leadership.
Senator Gardner. Thank you.
Dr. Martin, did you wish to add anything to that?
Dr. Martin. Yes, I would.
In my testimony, I referred to ``One Country, Two
Systems,'' a model that was originally developed for use with
Taiwan. And it would seem the actions of recent days would
indicate to Taiwan that ``One Country, Two Systems'' may not be
a desirable model. And therefore, those in Taiwan who support
separatism from the mainland are not interested in
reunification in any form probably are feeling a little more
emboldened politically in Taiwan.
Some things that I have seen about the upcoming
Presidential elections indicate that China may have really
helped out the prospects for President Tsai to get reelected.
And China has a habit, it seems, of doing things not very
deftly, to get contrary results to what they want by showing
their hands in a certain way.
And then to bring it into Hong Kong--and I do see similar
trends in Taiwan--you are seeing this development of a separate
entity from the sort of global Chinese. Interviews that I have
done, regular surveys in Hong Kong about how they identify
themselves--increasingly people just say [Chinese spoken]. I am
a Hong Konger. No reference to China. No reference to being
Chinese. The surveys offer the opportunity to say [Chinese
spoken] in Cantonese. They do not do that very much anymore.
And the last time I was in Taiwan, which was a few years
ago, I saw a similar attitude emerging in the younger
generation. They do not identify themselves as Chinese anymore.
They are Taiwanese.
And so my final comment is there is kind of this tension
socially, culturally that I see in Hong Kong and in Taiwan of
developing a separate identity from the greater China concept,
but at the same time, the mainland economy becoming more
infiltrated into or engaged in in both Hong Kong, Taiwan, and
elsewhere. Senator Markey referred to perestroika and glasnost,
and those of us old enough to remember when that was an issue,
perestroika has a down side sometimes. If perestroika allows
these economies to get influence and power within the country,
then those governments can use that economic influence for
political means and other means.
And in Hong Kong, back in 1997 when I was working for the
Trade Development Council, this is one of the things we talked
about. Would this opening up of mainland China subjugate the
Hong Kong economy to the mainland economy so that the desire
for Hong Kong to have a high degree of autonomy would be
undermined? And I would be concerned that that may be a reality
or becoming a reality in Hong Kong. And I know in Taiwan, there
are political figures who are extremely concerned about the
same thing.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Dr. Martin.
Mr. Law, last word. I am going to close out the hearing
here. Anything you would like to add?
Mr. Law. Well, thanks, Chairman Gardner, for having this
hearing. I do believe that it means a lot to the Hong Kong
people because the intense attention to the Hong Kong situation
shows that the free societies are watching and the ways that
the Chinese Communist Party has been doing on Hong Kong is
definitely proof that its ruthlessness and also atrocity will
not be treasured by the global community and you will react
enough--well, concrete actions. And these are a vital
importance for Hong Kong people. Thank you.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Law. And when it comes to
your fight for freedom, your fight for autonomy, and the
opportunities you stand for, we are all Hong Kongers. Thank you
very much for being here.
Thank you to everyone for attending today's hearing and to
the witnesses, obviously, for your testimony.
For the information of members, the record will be open
until the close of business on Monday, including for members to
submit questions for the record. I would kindly ask that you
would respond as quickly as possible, should those be submitted
for record. Those answers will be made a part of the record.
And again, with the thanks of this committee, the hearing
is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]