{ "id": "IN10730", "type": "CRS Insight", "typeId": "INSIGHTS", "number": "IN10730", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 462309, "date": "2017-06-30", "retrieved": "2017-08-22T14:03:59.572662", "title": "Hong Kong Marks 20th Anniversary of Handover to Chinese Sovereignty ", "summary": "On July 1, 1997, Hong Kong returned to Chinese sovereignty in accordance with the \u201cJoint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People\u2019s Republic of China (PRC) on the Question of Hong Kong\u201d (Joint Declaration) and the \u201cBasic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR)\u201d (Basic Law). Twenty years later, some observers, including some Members of Congress, question the PRC government\u2019s commitment to the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, and have proposed changing U.S. relations with China and Hong Kong accordingly. \n\u201cOne Country, Two Systems\u201d\nOriginally formulated for the future resolution of Taiwan\u2019s relationship with the PRC, China and the United Kingdom adopted the \u201cOne Country, Two Systems\u201d policy during the Joint Declaration negotiations. Under \u201cOne Country, Two Systems,\u201d Hong Kong would be afforded \u201ca high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs,\u201d and its \u201ccurrent social and economic systems in Hong Kong will remain unchanged.\u201d The Basic Law provides the HKSAR government with \u201cexecutive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication, in accordance with the provisions of this Law.\u201d \nChina\u2019s National People\u2019s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC), however, has periodically \u201cinterpreted\u201d the Basic Law in a manner some observers maintain violates Hong Kong\u2019s \u201chigh degree of autonomy\u201d and undermines its \u201cindependent judicial power.\u201d In November 2016, while Hong Kong\u2019s High Court was considering a case determining the legitimacy of two prodemocracy Legislative Council (Legco) members\u2019 oaths, the NPCSC issued an \u201cinterpretation\u201d of Article 104, setting new conditions for the taking of oaths of office (see CRS Insight IN10605, China and the Hong Kong High Court Issue Decisions on Legislative Council Controversy (Update)). Subsequently, outgoing Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying filed another suit to have four more prodemocracy Legco members removed from office for allegedly failing to take their oaths in the manner prescribed by the NPCSC\u2019s interpretation. \nDemocratization and Self-Determination\nThe Basic Law also states that the \u201cultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures\u201d and \u201cthe election of all the members of the Legislative Council (Legco) by universal suffrage.\u201d Currently, the Chief Executive is selected by an Election Committee reportedly influenced by the PRC government, and half of the 70 Legco members are not elected by universal suffrage (see CRS In Focus IF10500, Hong Kong\u2019s Legislative Council (Legco)). \nIn late 2014, more than 100,000 Hong Kong residents participated in a large-scale demonstration, dubbed the \u201cUmbrella Movement,\u201d calling for the Chief Executive\u2019s election by \u201cgenuine universal suffrage.\u201d In June 2015, Legco defeated a proposal submitted by the HKSAR government to elect the Chief Executive by universal suffrage because it placed restrictions on the nomination process (see CRS Insight IN10298, Hong Kong\u2019s Legislative Council Votes Down Chief Executive Election Reform). \nSeveral new political parties emerged out of the Umbrella Movement, receiving their greatest support from Hong Kong\u2019s youth. Some of these new parties have called for Hong Kong independence, a return to British colonial rule, and the right of self-determination for the people of Hong Kong. In May 2017, NPCSC Chairman Zhang Dejiang warned that the PRC \u201ccannot turn a blind eye\u201d to \u201cattempts to turn Hong Kong into an independent or semi-independent political entity.\u201d\nSome Hong Kong political leaders are concerned that the PRC and HKSAR governments are attempting to purge Legco and the city\u2019s political system of prodemocracy advocates. The day after Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor was selected as the HKSAR\u2019s next Chief Executive, nine of the Umbrella Movement leaders were arrested for \u201ccausing a public nuisance.\u201d \nCivil Liberties\nSome commentators also claim there has been an erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong. Press freedom has reportedly declined due to self-censorship, multiple attacks on journalists, and the purchase of major media outlets by mainland Chinese companies. In 2016, five Hong Kong booksellers \u201cdisappeared\u201d from Hong Kong, mainland China, and Thailand, and reappeared in police custody in mainland China by still-unexplained means. The British Foreign Secretary has described these disappearances as a \u201cserious breach\u201d of the Joint Declaration. In February 2017, business tycoon Xiao Jianhua was forcibly removed from his hotel room in Hong Kong and taken into mainland China, possibly by mainland law enforcement agents. \nEconomic Issues\nHong Kong remains a major trade and financial hub in Asia for U.S. businesses. According to some economists, the city has become more reliant on mainland China over the last 20 years, while China has become less dependent on Hong Kong to be its window to the world. In addition, structural changes in Hong Kong\u2019s economy have increased income and wealth disparities. Declining economic prospects have contributed both to disillusionment among some of Hong Kong\u2019s youth and to their support for the new political parties. In addition, the NPCSC\u2019s intervention into Hong Kong court cases has raised doubts about Hong Kong\u2019s rule of law, which is considered crucial for the HKSAR\u2019s role as an international trade and financial center. \nU.S. Policy\nThe United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-383) continues the United States\u2019 separate treatment of Hong Kong from China under U.S. law unless the President determines and certifies to Congress that Hong Kong is no longer sufficiently autonomous to warrant such treatment. In a June 2017 review, the State Department stated, \u201cHong Kong generally maintains a high degree of autonomy under the one country, two systems\u2019 framework, more than sufficient to justify continued special treatment by the United States for bilateral agreements and programs.\u201d A bill introduced in the 115th Congress, the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2017 (S. 417), would modify the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act to require an annual report on, and recertification of, Hong Kong\u2019s autonomy, and would impose sanctions on persons determined to be responsible \u201cfor the surveillance, abduction, detention, abuse, or forced confession\u201d of Hong Kong residents attempting to exercise their civil liberties.", "type": "CRS Insight", "typeId": "INSIGHTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/IN10730", "sha1": "775856d2556fbd22d527a473470c1502eda49cda", "filename": "files/20170630_IN10730_775856d2556fbd22d527a473470c1502eda49cda.html", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4911, "name": "East Asia & Pacific" } ] } ], "topics": [ "CRS Insights" ] }