The article is part of the 'Hong Kong Anti-extradition Demonstrations: One Year Ago Today' initiative which aims to raise awareness for the movement and also to debunk some myths regarding the movement’s origins and core elements.

Due to the article's original length, we have had to split its content over separate pieces. For a more complete understanding of foreign government reactions to both the Anti-extradition Demonstrations in 2019 and to the current National Security Law, please refer to the links below.

• INSIGHT: The ‘Limp and Inane’ versus the ‘Outspoken’: Part One - Britain’s responsibility for the ‘Hong Kong Problem’

• INSIGHT: The ‘Limp and Inane’ versus the ‘Outspoken’: Part Two - The EU Reaction

• INSIGHT: The ‘Limp and Inane’ versus the ‘Outspoken’: Part Three - Economic Sanctions, US Decertification of Hong Kong’s Special Status and Potential Repercussions

However, due to the constantly-changing nature of recent events, it has been impossible to update the article without turning it into a series of short unrelated summaries. To ensure constructive debate, the published article has been limited to ‘Part One: Britain's responsibility for the 'Hong Kong Problem'. Parts two and three which will briefly discuss the EU reaction and the consequences of US economic sanctions will be published in due time.

The ‘Limp and Inane’ versus the ‘Outspoken’: Foreign Government Reactions to the Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Demonstrations and Whether They Have Changed Since

From the Anti-Extradition Demonstrations in Hong Kong back in 2019 to the current controversies over the Hong Kong National Security Law, Hong Kong’s issues have since become a focal point of international attention. Whilst most remain as onlookers, bystanders to the regional chaos and conflict, at times commentating their rhetoric, the ‘Hong Kong problem’ has been mostly dominated by three voices; two which are audible and the other, muted and subdued.

Apocalyptic Headlines and Sensational Story Headings: Hong Kong’s Role as ‘A Mere Pawn’ in the Game of US-China Relations

It has often been critiqued that the Hong Kong people’s trustful calls for the US President Donald Trump to ‘save’ the city during the current climate of crisis as futile and redundant in their approach. Not only are the demonstrators being used to ‘further their own ruin’ but are simply deluded by the apparent support from the Western media, equating maximum media exposure as shows of solidarity and support. Previously during the Anti-extradition Demonstrations, it was denounced by select \(pro-Beijing)sources that the political chaos and social turmoil that broke out were consequences to a ‘black hand’ of foreign influence. Referring to foreign influence by the US, many have since supported the rhetoric which states that the US is simply using Hong Kong as a ‘pawn’ in the wider Sino-US political game.

History has a tendency to repeat itself, and it is of no surprise that US denouncement of Hong Kong’s National Security Law as a ‘death knell’ (Mike Pompeo) has been further condemned as ‘blatant interference’ by Chinese authorities. Apocalyptic headlines and sensationalist story headings have been documenting the recent developments in Hong Kong. Overnight, after the initial proposal of the National Security Law on 22nd of May, news titles such as ‘Is This the End of Hong Kong?’, “This is the end of Hong Kong’: China pushes controversial security laws’ and “China security law ‘could be the end of Hong Kong’ dominated the headlines of media outlets such as The New York Times, The Guardian and BBC News. Whilst compelling, to place total trust on the rhetorics of these large, seemingly credible media outlets is to be somewhat naive to the underlying motivations behind US intentions and its ‘outspokenness’.

Battle over a ‘Golden Goose’ or a Politically Driven ‘Proxy-War’?

How sensationalist Western media distorts truth over the ‘Hong Kong problem’: painting a singular narrative for Western imperialism, motivated by economic gains and political leverage.

China has reaped substantial benefits from the last two decades of globalisation. However, rapid growth and economic gains has suffered increased tensions in US-China relations. Its expansionist growth was dependent on an aggressive foreign policy and uncertainties over the future of China’s policies have become an arousing concern shared by many of the public.

Ezra F. Vogel, Professor of Social Sciences at Harvard University, accredits media exacerbation of the ‘China Threat’ as having allowed for fears of China’s growing global dominance to become exploited as a political tool to gain support. When asked about his opinion on US-China relations, Vogel replied, ‘I think that the American politicians find it very useful now to criticize China, they think that it helps them domestically.’ American politicians like Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton have previously been condemned by the Chinese Foreign Ministry for alleged actions of ‘attacking and slandering China’. When contextualised by aims of trying to gain local support, it provides sound evidence in support of Vogel’s statement.

Furthermore, a study conducted by FAIR, a US media watchdog group, during the anti-extradition demonstrations revealed a disproportionate interest in the coverage of the anti-government movement. Whilst increased exposure and raised social profile meant additional ‘international’ pressures on the government to withdraw the Extradition Bill, contention remains over whether this was a strategic manipulation of the ‘Hong Kong problem’ as leverage in the US-China Trade War and that mainstream media necessarily ‘mischaracterized’’ the struggle in Hong Kong in the interests of US imperialism. In the hundreds of articles sampled, it was clear that US corporate media were determined to promote one simple narrative of the ‘Hong Kong problem’; that the ‘‘democracy-minded people of Hong Kong’ were fighting for freedom against the repressive ‘Communist authority’ of Beijing.’ The reality of the situation was much more nuanced and the quality of Hong Kong articles was inversely proportional to the diversity of opinion.

The ‘Hong Kong Threat’: A Politically Driven ‘Proxy-War’ Between the US and China

Defined as a ‘war fought between groups or smaller countries that each represent the interests of other larger powers,’ it would be difficult to term the Anti-Extradition Demonstrations of last year as a ‘proxy war’. Though, this does not deny that the movement exhibits characteristics of similar sorts. Discourse over the implementation of the National Security Law reveals key aspects which support the idea of Hong Kong being used as a political ‘flashpoint’ for the wider Sino-US political game.

To understand this rhetoric requires a basic understanding of the proposed National Security Law. Read more about the law in ‘Hong Kong’s National Security Law: Autonomy at its End’.

The National Security Law emphasises that actions will be taken to ‘prevent, frustrate and punish behaviours and activities which harm national security’ as well as explicit condemnation of ‘intervention in the affairs of the HKSAR by any foreign countries or foreign forces, and takes necessary measures to counter it’. It further declares that ‘the State shall prevent, curb and punish foreign countries and foreign forces using Hong Kong for their activities to split, subvert, infiltrate, and sabotage the unity and sovereignty of China’. In its explicit reference to ‘foreign forces’ as one of its four main areas of concerns, the relative importance of ‘foreign interference’ as a ‘threat’ to uphold law and order within Hong Kong can be inferred.

However, this would not be the first time the National Security Law has been drawn up. Previously in 2003, it had been proposed and rejected after a series of public protests. Speculations have been sown over its timely reintroduction, following the city’s gradual reopening from the coronavirus pandemic and conveniently in the weeks leading up to the annual June 4th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989. However, judging by the extent of the US reaction to China’s actions and China’s responses, it remains clear that Hong Kong plays an important role in whatever the Sino-US game is competitioning for. Known for its status as a financial hub, China and the US both reap substantial economic benefits from trade relations with Hong Kong; credible due to its upkeep of international law and maintenance of a free, open market economy.

However, under the US-Hong Kong Policy Act 1992, Hong Kong is considered as an independent customs territory and economic entity separate from the rest of China, and enjoys special trade and economic relations due to its special status. Besides from significant economic benefits (which will be discussed in the section below, ‘Hong Kong as a ‘Golden Goose’: US Actions as Driven by Economic Interests’) the US administration treatment of Hong Kong as a ‘Free World outpost’ necessarily provides Washington with a policy tool to interfere into Hong Kong’s affairs following the handover, if and when necessary. Benefits from its recognition of Hong Kong as a non-sovereign entity distinct from China explicates US support for its democratization.

Read ‘Final Remarks - Updates on the US Front’ in ‘Economic Sanctions, US Decertification of Hong Kong’s Special Status and Potential Repercussions: Steps Forward, Hurdles to Overcome and Stones to Trip Over’ for latest updates on US actions.

From China’s perspective, however, Hong Kong’s special status is a political loophole that allows ‘foreign forces’ like the US to interfere in China’s internal affairs. It is evidently a threat to national security and must, therefore, be filled. US interference as motivated by a vested interest in destabilising China does not go unfounded as China’s expansionist plans pose a significant threat to US hegemony. When considering Hong Kong’s importance to China, and to itself, in terms of economic growth and foreign investment, the ‘war’ over Hong Kong wages both an economic and political significance for the two superpowers.

Hong Kong as a ‘Golden Goose’: US Actions as Driven by Economic Interests

One year ago, the US was heavily engaged in a trade war with China when the Anti-Extradition Demonstrations broke out. Whilst government officials in the UK had expressed their ‘deep concerns’ for the safety of the Hong Kong people, US President Donald Trump’s policy of ‘non-commital’ was unexpectedly mild and was met with criticism from state representatives in Congress that pushed for harsh condemnation of China for the proposed Extradition Bill.

President Trump’s initial response back in June 2019 was that he hoped the demonstrators could ‘work it out’ with Beijing. Without elaborating on his comment, he simply said, ‘I understand the reason for the demonstration, but I’m sure they will be able to work it out.’ He referred to the demonstrations as mere ‘riots’ and was dismissive in his response, advising that China should ‘humanely’ settle the issues in Hong Kong before their scheduled trade deal. He was further seen to adopt China’s rhetorics, which left many wondering whether it was really the case that the US had simply seen the Hong Kong protests as the prime opportunity to safeguard its own economic interests under the guise of promoting human rights and democracy.

As the demonstrations progressed, President Trump was seen to adopt an even greater dichotomy of rhetorics, declaring that he was ‘with’ Hong Kong whilst simultaneously praising President Xi for being ‘an incredible guy.’ He later signed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act after it had been unanimously voted through the Senate on 19th November. A heavily critiqued document, the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act has done little to help the people of Hong Kong on the ground and instead ‘assesses whether Hong Kong is and will continue to be beneficial for US business interests hinting at a potential reclassification of its special trade status with the US under the 1992 United States-Hong Kong Policy Act if conditions worsen’.

The events of last year are not that far in the past. With memories of the Anti-extradition Demonstrations fresh in people’s minds, the heightened stakes over the National Security Law has witnessed another surge in protests and public discontent. Whilst justifiable in its concerns for its 80 thousand US state nationals and 1,300 US companies that are currently based in Hong Kong, exhaustive references to Hong Kong’s ‘death of autonomy’ and echoes of a regional ‘crisis’ and demise of the city-state is said to have fuelled unrest and propelled those involved in the demonstrations into further dissent and chaos. Western imperialism has historically held itself as the world’s moral beacon, driven by values of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy.’ Similar terms are being used amongst the protestors and the disproportionate panic that has consumed Hong Kong has brought added suspicions over the implications of inter-imperialist rivalry and power struggle within the region.

Note that opinions expressed in the article above do not represent the overall stance of Asiatic Affairs, Students' Union UCL or University College London. If you have read something you would like to respond to, please get in touch with uclasiaticaffairs@gmail.com.

Editors' Note: As a blanket disclaimer for the entire ‘Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Demonstrations: One Year Ago Today’ initiative, we will not be disclosing the identities of any of the contributors to the initiative. We thank everyone who has submitted a piece of their own work and we apologise for not being able to openly accredit you for your contributions.