- Tweeter
republish
On Monday, October 21, the Chinese Foreign Minister accused the " foreign forces " of being at work behind the " violence " in Hong Kong. What are the proofs of this " political conspiracy " regularly denounced by Beijing? Why shake it again now?
The chorus is old. " There are foreign forces that are encouraging this kind of street violence, in order to destabilize Hong Kong, to wreak havoc ... to destroy historic projects that have been achieved since the implementation of the One Country Policy. two systems, " Wang Yi, head of Chinese diplomacy visiting Paris, pleaded on Monday.
These statements come after the 20th consecutive Sunday of protests in Hong Kong. A new mobilization marked by clashes between police and protesters angry after the aggression of two pro-democracy activists.
Are Beijing's accusations justified ?
" They are totally unfounded," rejects Hong Kong specialist Philippe Le Corre, a researcher at Harvard Kennedy School. It's an invention from scratch. The Chinese refer to "color revolutions" in the Arab Spring, where democratic movements have been helped by foreign agents. "
The vocabulary of the " anti-Chinese forces " is a lexicon regularly in vogue since the founding of the People's Republic in 1949, the "cultural revolution" in Tiananmen, then during the "Arab Spring" in 2011. The Chinese nationalists believed then pin the US ambassador Jon Huntsman, accused of fomenting a "jasmine revolution" in China by a mere appearance before a McDonald's in Beijing, the day of a tiny rally for a demonstration that never took place.
In the eyes of Philippe Le Corre, the history of the current movement in Hong Kong leaves no doubt: " It starts with the commemoration of the thirty years of Tiananmen. This continues with major protests against the extradition bill [particularly to China; Editor's note] , then by a monster demonstration with more than a million people on the street. How could foreign powers have organized such an event ? "
What then is the evidence put forward by Beijing to justify its accusations? According to China Daily, an English-speaking Communist Party organ, there is a series of " unmistakable " facts. Beginning with the meeting of Julie Eadeh, Political Counselor at the US Consulate in Hong Kong, with three of the leaders of the Hong Kong protest, Martin Lee, Anson Chan and Joshua Wong. It was August 6th. " It's too easy to accuse the diplomats," says Philippe Le Corre. They are just doing their job : they meet all the political and social actors of the city. But they do not come with suitcases of dollars ! "
That's not all, says the China Daily. A few months earlier, the same Martin Lee and Anson Chan, as well as Jimmy Lai, owner of the Hong Kong pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily, had met in Washington Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Look no further, adds the equally official Global Times , the "color revolution" is under way in Hong Kong. Again, where are the proofs? Would there have been official meetings endorsing other secret meetings, such as the one organized in 2018 with Venezuelan soldiers wanting to overthrow Nicolas Maduro? Washington had finally decided not to support a coup in Caracas. In Hong Kong, so far, nothing like this has happened.
The " black hand " of America behind the protesters ?
More brilliant and even more decisive, says the China Daily , the financing of some NGOs in Hong Kong participating in pro-democracy demonstrations: they receive money from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
What to think? This private non-profit endowment fund was created under the presidency of Ronald Reagan in 1983. It is heavily funded by the US Treasury. China, like Russia, argues that the NED is a " CIA muffler ". It has indeed happened to the fund to appear to replace with NGO funding CIA clandestine activities in favor of democratic forces abroad, such as Solidarnösc in Poland or more recently in Ukraine .
With regard to Hong Kong, Beijing's argument is not new. The Chinese regime had already accused the NED of being the " black hand " behind the "umbrella movement" in 2014 . At the time, the American organization had not denied its funding programs, which have existed in Hong Kong for twenty years. She defended herself by arguing that her grants to local NGOs were used to run citizenship or human rights training workshops, and that they could not be equated with insurgency for change. of diet.
Five years later, irrefutable evidence of preparatory meetings and direct funding of ongoing protests has not yet been provided. Ironically, the Trump administration, in its 2019 budget, planned to drastically reduce NED grants , and dismantle its ties with its two subsidiary organizations, the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute. (IRI). It is therefore difficult to show that the former real estate mogul is a strong supporter of the current Hong Kong movement.
It is also not certain that the tweets of the American president are bringing more water to the Beijing mill. The tenant of the White House began by equating the demonstrators with " rioters " , the very term used by China and which in Hong Kong law rhymes with heavy penalties for the protesters arrested.
Donald Trump then seized the party to pull events in Hong Kong in his trade war with Xi Jinping, conditioning the conclusion of his deal with China to a " human " outcome to the crisis . In short, we are far from advocating for the rule of law or universal suffrage, two of the Hong Kong protesters' demands.
Next vote in the US Senate on Hong Kong
Why does Beijing's rhetoric ignite then these days? It is that the US Senate is called to vote the 2019 version of the "law on human rights and democracy in Hong Kong." Designed in 2015 during the "Umbrellas Movement", the House of Representatives updated it and ratified it on October 15th .
What does this law allow? The US State Department could impose sanctions against individuals accused of violating the "one country, two systems" principle in Hong Kong. Principle at the heart of the retrocession agreement signed in 1984 by Beijing and London: the former British colony must maintain a high degree of autonomy and civil liberties for fifty years after returning to the fold of the mother country.
When will the Senate vote be held? " This week or the next, " said Oct. 18 Marco Rubio , a Florida senator. Yet this vote will not be enough to enforce this law. It will also require the signature of Donald Trump. However, the US president has not indicated whether he would initial it.
Certainly, his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently affirmed his support for the protection of the special status of Hong Kong. " President Trump said that the Chinese must continue to honor their past commitment not only with the British, but with the United Nations and the world. But who can say what the unpredictable Donald Trump will decide in the end? In the meantime, Beijing is briskly surfing the uncertainty to pinch the Chinese nationalist rope.
► See also : After the political crisis in Hong Kong, the economic crisis