With white paper, Beijing may have achieved the opposite of what it wants
Michael C. Davis says not only does the white paper raise doubts about Beijing's commitment to the rule of law, but its tough stance has also inflamed, not frightened, Hong Kong protesters
What is the purpose of Beijing's white paper on Hong Kong? Some argue that it is issuing a warning to unruly protesters. Others assert that this is nothing more than a progress report on "one country, two systems".
A careful reading of the text suggests, rather, an overriding purpose to say forcefully that Beijing is in charge. What will this mean for Hong Kong's rule of law?
Most striking in the report is the dramatic change of tone from 30 years earlier. When the Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed in 1984, Hong Kong people were told to put their hearts at ease. There would be "one country, two systems", Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong, a high degree of autonomy and no change for 50 years.
The legislature was to be chosen by elections and the chief executive by elections or consultations. The common law was to be maintained and the courts were to be independent and final. These requirements were stipulated to be included in the Basic Law.
This agreement and eventually the Basic Law were taken to the capitals of the world where foreign governments were asked to rely on this guarantee of Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy in treating Hong Kong distinctively.
Now we are confronted with a white paper on Hong Kong, which, after repeating the above guarantees, tells us in no uncertain terms that Beijing is the ultimate authority, that "one country" is way more important than "two systems" and that foreign governments are to keep their noses out of Hong Kong affairs.