[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 110 (Wednesday, September 15, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1647-E1648]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR FREEDOM IN HONG KONG

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JAMES A. LEACH

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 13, 2004

  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 667, expressing 
support for democracy in Hong Kong. I would like thank the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), as well as the 
distinguished Ranking Member of the Committee on International 
Relations (Mr. Lantos), for sponsoring this timely and important 
resolution.
  As my colleagues are aware, this is the seventh year after Hong 
Kong's reversion to China. As the Department of State noted in an April 
2004 report to Congress (as mandated by the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act 
of 1992), the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) remains an 
international city whose residents continue to enjoy protections of the 
rule of law and broad civil liberties.
  As is also well-understood, the U.S. maintains substantial economic 
and political interests in Hong Kong and promotes Hong Kong's high 
degree of autonomy under Chinese sovereignty. Washington works closely 
with the authorities in Hong Kong on a wide range of international 
issues, not the least of which is cooperation in the global campaign 
against terrorism.
  Having said that, developments over the last year have raised serious 
concerns, in the former British colony as well as around the world, 
regarding Beijing's commitment to respect the ``high degree of 
autonomy'' it has promised Hong Kong.
  From a Congressional perspective, it appears self-evident that 
advancing democratization and constitutional reform--including 
universal suffrage--would contribute to the city's political stability 
and economic prosperity. The authorities in Beijing should realize that 
a vibrant, democratic and prosperous Hong Kong would be a tremendous 
asset to China. Hong Kong will only become a threat if China makes it 
so.
  Even though the Basic Law may not technically require fuller 
democracy by 2007-2008, wisdom as well as respect for autonomy dictates 
the embrace of democracy for Hong Kong. Having traveled to Indonesia, 
Malaysia, and the Philippines earlier this year, all of which have held 
successful local and national elections, I see no reason why Hong 
Kong--with all its wealth and sophistication--cannot do so also.
  The people of Hong Kong made plain their aspirations for greater 
democratic autonomy, aspirations fully within the framework of the 
``one country, two systems'' formula, when they so impressively 
demonstrated on July 1 last year. In the aftermath of those peaceful 
demonstrations, the Hong Kong government appeared to listen to the 
people and withdrew controversial national security legislation pending 
additional consultations with the populace of the city. The people of 
Hong Kong again showed their keen interest in participatory democracy 
when they turned out in record numbers for District Council elections 
last November, and in another large and peaceful pro-democracy 
demonstration on July 1st of this year.

  In addition, in elections held on September 12, turnout was a record 
1.784 million voters (55.63 percent of registered voters). However, 
pro-democracy candidates, perhaps stung by scandal, managed to gain 
only three seats for a total of 25, a disappointing outcome since 
opinion polls indicated stronger results under Hong Kong's complex 
electoral system.
  The election results notwithstanding, one has the sense that the pace 
of democratization in Hong Kong appears inconsistent with the desires 
of a majority of the Hong Kong people. Indeed, recent decisions by 
Beijing setting limits on constitutional development in Hong Kong 
appear to be inconsistent with the ``high degree of autonomy'' promised 
by the central authorities in the 1982 Joint Declaration and the Basic 
Law.
  Equally dismaying has been a series of incidents in Hong Kong--from 
several political talk show hosts complaining of apparent threats 
against them, the appearance of a Chinese flotilla sailing through 
Victoria Harbor, an attack on the office of legislator Emily Lau, and 
recent allegations of harassment against the print media--that many 
perceive to be part of a campaign of intimidation against pro-democracy 
advocates in Hong Kong. Likewise, a new element in the September 
elections has been the concern of pro-democracy groups that mainland 
authorities were attempting to influence the outcome of the vote.
  Although mainland officials insist that they continue to support the 
Basic Law's commitment to universal suffrage in Hong Kong, Beijing's 
actions indicate that the central authorities are profoundly concerned 
about the extension of democratic rights in the HKSAR. It is hard to 
know precisely why China has resisted Hong Kong's democratic 
aspirations, but what might be termed Beijing's ``three confusions''--
that reform might spin out of control, that democracy in Hong Kong 
would create a potentially destabilizing precedent for China, and a 
mistaken conflation of the situation in Hong Kong with the situation in 
Taiwan--are all possible explanations.
  Whatever the reasons, they are uncompelling. One has the sense that 
China is moving into the world with increasing sophistication, yet 
maintains major misconceptions about Hong Kong.
  There is also a ``fourth confusion'' which the United States itself 
should seek to avoid in its policy toward Hong Kong. By that, I mean 
America needs to find ways to strongly support the Hong Kong people's 
desire for democracy, electoral reform and universal suffrage without 
precipitating unnecessary Sino-American confrontation, damaging the 
interests of the people of Hong Kong or inadvertently undercutting the 
cause of Hong Kong's democrats.
  Like Beijing, the U.S. has an enormous vested interest in the success 
of the ``one country, two systems'' model in Hong Kong. In this 
context, I believe it would be unwise and counterproductive at this 
time for the U.S. to review Hong Kong's treatment under the U.S.-Hong 
Kong Policy Act, as has been suggested in some quarters.
  America needs to keep perspective. While the speed and scope of 
political change may be frustrating, Hong Kong still stands out on the 
Asian landscape as an enduring beacon for the rule of law and civil 
liberties.
  I stress this because often in relations between states well-
intentioned positions can be considered counterproductive. The U.S. 
Congress is obligated to comment on the importance of the people of 
Hong Kong being permitted to determine the pace and scope of 
constitutional developments and to move forward with democracy and 
electoral reform. However, we have no desire to be confrontational.
  What is critical at this juncture is that all parties take credible 
steps to restore dialogue, build confidence, and seek compromise.
  Whether the 21st Century is peaceful and whether it is prosperous 
will depend on whether the world's most populous country can live

[[Page E1648]]

with itself and become open to the world in a fair and respectful 
manner. Hong Kong is central to that possibility. As such, it deserves 
our greatest attention, respect, and good will.
  Hong Kong is important unto itself; it is also a model for others. In 
particular, what happens there is watched with great interest by the 
people of Taiwan. In a globalist world where peoples everywhere are 
seeking a sense of community to serve as a buttress against political 
and economic forces beyond the control of individuals and their 
families, it is next to impossible to reconcile political systems based 
on unlike institutions and attitudes. Mutual respect for differences is 
the key to peace and prosperity in a world in which history suggests 
conflict has been a generational norm.

                          ____________________