A Washington Post op-ed (7/3/20) warns China: “With sustained pressure from within and without, even the most repressive colonial systems can eventually fall victim to their own lawlessness.”
When China passed a national security law for Hong Kong on June 30, criminalizing terrorism, secession and subversion of the Chinese government, as well as collusion with foreign governments, massive condemnations resounded all over Western media.
Vox (5/21/20) described it as an “official death sentence” for the “one country, two systems” model of governance in Hong Kong. Business Insider’s headline (7/1/20) described China’s national security law as having “killed Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement in less than a year.” The Washington Post (7/3/20) ran an op-ed mocking China’s actions as “nothing less than imperialism with Chinese characteristics.” The Atlantic (7/1/20) described Hong Kong as a “colony once more,” equating the Chinese government with previous British and Japanese “overlords in a distant capital” making “decisions on Hong Kong’s behalf.”
Of course, while Western media describe the national security law as something China “imposed” on Hong Kong, these same outlets rarely if ever present the “one country, two systems” model of governance in Hong Kong as something that was imposed on China by British imperialism, when London refused to unconditionally return the former colony to China. Hong Kong was violently seized from China with the Treaty of Nanking in 1842, after the British waged a war to impose the opium trade on China, causing about 90 million Chinese people to develop an addiction by the end of the 19th century.
FAIR studies (10/26/20, 12/6/20) have found that Hong Kong protests received dramatically more media attention than contemporaneous protests in US client states like Chile, Haiti and Ecuador. FAIR found that the disparity in coverage couldn’t be explained by the protests’ size, significance, number of casualties or response from the authorities, as police crackdowns in US dependencies have been far more brutal and lethal than the crackdown in Hong Kong. The disparity is better explained by corporate journalists considering Hong Kong protesters “worthy victims,” more deserving of coverage because they are protesting against an Official EnemyTM of the US, rather than a government friendly to Washington.
While one cannot describe China’s national security law as an act of “colonialism” or “imperialism,” since Hong Kong is part of China, FAIR conducted a study comparing media coverage of Hong Kong’s national security law and actual colonialism by the US in Puerto Rico, and by its ally Israel in Palestine. From June 16 to July 14, FAIR searched for all relevant results for “Hong Kong+security law,” “Israel+annex” and a general search for “Puerto Rico” on the New York Times and Wall Street Journal’s websites, as well as a Nexis search for CNN’s coverage. FAIR included all relevant results, except reposted content from newswires like Reuters and the Associated Press. Full documentation, including links to all the articles in the sample, can be found here.
In total, there have been 113 articles on China’s new national security law in Hong Kong, 12 on Israel’s plans to unilaterally annex parts of the West Bank on July 1 (which have currently been stalled), and six altogether on Puerto Rico.
In nearly a month of coverage, there were only six stories on Puerto Rico in three leading outlets, despite the island’s ongoing crisis. One was a New York Times story (7/10/20) that reported that Trump had asked then-Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke, “Can we sell the island? You know, or divest of that asset?”
Puerto Rico is currently the world’s oldest colony, incorporated into the US empire as spoils of war following the Spanish/American War of 1898, and it currently enjoys less political participation than it did during the Spanish monarchy (Washington Post, 12/13/17). The US has consistently exploited Puerto Rico’s economy for over a century, and has denied the colony representation in Congress or the right to vote in presidential elections (CounterSpin, 8/2/19, 3/18/20). Washington has imposed neoliberal shock doctrine on the island, withholding aid following the devastation left by Hurricane Maria, earthquakes and coronavirus (FAIR.org, 2/9/18; Common Dreams, 1/9/20).
Puerto Rico’s local sovereignty is also compromised by the fact that the Jones Act and the PROMESA Act render it totally dependent on the US federal government for its economic viability, along with having an unelected, Washington-appointed body overseeing the colony’s finances. In 2019, the human rights group Kilómetro Cero documented the police killing of at least four civilians on the island. Puerto Rico’s police have a long history of racist violence and suppression of free speech, suspending the First Amendment after 11 PM to terminate protests in part of 2019.
In FAIR’s sample, two of the six articles on Puerto Rico (New York Times, 7/10/20; CNN, 7/12/20) also discussed the revelation that Trump considered selling Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria, referring to it as an “asset,” demonstrating the US’s mercantile attitude towards its colony–though neither of these articles used words like “colony” or “imperialism.”
While Israel’s settler colonialism has been going on for decades, FAIR’s search focused on Israel’s plans to annex the West Bank on July 1, because it was a contemporaneous measure taken by a US ally that would permanently end prospects for Palestinian independence under a two-state solution (FAIR.org, 1/31/20, 2/7/20). While some of the disparity in coverage could be explained by the postponement of the planned annexation on July 1 due to coronavirus and international condemnation, even if we confine coverage from the Times, Journal and CNN from June 16 to July 1, there are still 44 articles on China’s national security law for Hong Kong, compared to 12 on Israel’s planned annexation of Palestinian territory.
If, as Israel’s annexation asserts, the West Bank is not an independent nation deserving of self-determination, than Israel/Palestine is an apartheid state where millions of Palestinians are denied democratic rights due to their ethnicity. The denial of these rights has a heavy human cost: According to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem (1/1/20), Israeli security forces killed 133 Palestinians in 2019, including 28 children. Fifty-six of the people killed took no part in hostilities against Israel, making them victims of Israeli state terrorism.
Corporate media’s particular interest in Hong Kong protests cannot be explained by the Hong Kong police force’s crackdown being exceptionally brutal. After Chinese revolutionaries waged what Chinese people call the War of Liberation against Western and Japanese colonizers, Communists in Hong Kong led uprisings against British colonial rule in 1967, during which colonial police shot to death or otherwise killed at least 17 people. In contrast, while instances of police brutality have been documented during the current Hong Kong protests, none of the four deaths of protesters reported so far in the current unrest have been directly and credibly attributed to police violence. Hong Kong protesters, meanwhile, have set a man on fire, bombed subways, beaten elderly people and young women, and murdered a 70-year-old man by hurling a brick at his head (South China Morning Post, 11/12/19, 6/3/20).
Nor does international condemnation explain the greater attention US media pay to China’s assertion of control over its own territory compared to actual colonialism in Puerto Rico and Palestine: More countries support China’s actions defending its sovereignty than oppose them, and the UN has passed numerous resolutions calling for Puerto Rican and Palestinian self-determination.
While a Wall Street Journal editorial on Hong Kong (7/1/20) mourned that “China snuffs out a beacon of freedom,” a Journal op-ed (7/1/20) advised the Israeli Prime Minister on how to “slice the annexation salami.”
Not only was far more media attention given to the national security law in Hong Kong, there was also a huge difference in tone in the coverage. The Journal ran numerous editorials (7/1/20, 7/8/20, 7/14/20) and op-eds (7/2/20, 7/13/20) worrying about Hong Kong’s “endangered elections,” and mulling over how to best “punish China” for its “illegal takeover,” as well as ways to “curb Chinese intimidation” of Western corporations, pointing to laws forbidding companies to boycott Israel as a model. However, the Journal only ran one op-ed (7/1/20) on the West Bank, which advised Netanyahu to “slice some pieces off the annexation salami,” because Israel’s illegal takeover works better as a “bargaining chip” than “as a fait accompli,” and only one column on Puerto Rico (6/22/20), a celebration of the privatization of Puerto Rico’s bankrupt public utility.
The Times’ editorial board (7/1/20) urged Trump to “pressure” China, because “history will not be kind to those who did nothing to try to stop Beijing’s human rights abuses”; the paper did not speculate on history’s attitude toward the US’s own human rights abuses in Puerto Rico, or its support for those of its ally Israel in Palestine.
The paper ran numerous articles (7/7/20, 7/8/20, 7/14/20) on the national security law’s suppression of political expression in Hong Kong, noting that the Times will be moving part of its Hong Kong bureau to Seoul. The paper unironically noted that it must partially relocate to South Korea for that country’s “independent press,” and because some journalists fear Beijing will “crack down on activism and speech.” South Korea’s defamation laws can imprison people for three years for publishing true statements its government deems not in the public interest, and its authoritarian National Security Act censors and punishes people for reading and voicing opinions favorable to North Korea.
Judging by the volume and tone of media coverage about China’s national security law, one might get the impression that the law is an unprecedented and obvious threat to civil liberties. While there are legitimate concerns about how widely it can be applied (the vaguely worded law appears to assert “long-arm jurisdiction” for violations committed outside the territory, although the Chinese government denies this), China passed a similar law in 2009 for its other autonomous region, Macau—which was returned to China by Portugal in 1999—and Macau still remains autonomous. Plenty of other countries, including the US, already have anti-sedition laws on the books.
CNN (6/29/20) notes that anti-separatism is the “norm worldwide,” and a UN resolution states:
Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
While Hong Kong protesters wave US and British colonial flags for varying reasons, some have called on US President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson to “liberate” the territory and “fight for us.” The US government funded last year’s protests through the US Agency for Global Media (FAIR.org, 7/15/20). The National Endowment for Democracy (NED)—which performs the foreign government–subverting work the CIA used to do more covertly—has also given millions of dollars in support. Some of its leaders have openly colluded with US officials, and yearn for a return to British colonialism, which had little semblance of democracy throughout most of its occupation. Given that the United States criminalizes foreign interference in its elections, it should hardly be surprising or shocking that China would pass similar laws.
I am Puerto Rican, and I congratulate you because of the well informed that you are as to the subject of Puerto Rico. I want to comment that it’s true that UN has recognised the right of Puerto Rico’s right to self-determination, but it cannot impose independence. Self-determination is not equal to independence but to whatever form of final status a country choose in a democratic process and accordingly to international law.
The USA has other colonies, like Guam and Okinawa.
Excellent coverage and analysis. Very refreshing to see an analysis that makes relevant the bias of the mainstream media. The only exception I’d take is the comments that HK police demonstrated brutality towards protestors. My understanding is many of the videos or pictures showing strong arming by police did not show the full picture. And in one instances in particular four rioters ganged up on one police to try to take his weapon and he had to fire towards the ground for self defense. There were many instances like that. Nonetheless you are to be commented for your efforts to show journalistic fairness.
So now FAIR’s Cho is characterizing the Chinese Communist party’s crackdown on public speech in Hong Kong as an act of “defending its sovereignty” and “criminalizing subversion.”
Excellent. Forget the whole free speech angle, right? “Lock ’em up” is now FAIR’s rallying cry against any would-be governmental protestors around the world?
Disclaimer: I’m a journalist from Hong Kong. And I have been a longtime supporter of FAIR’s work as it helps put things in context and confront my perception of certain media narratives. But this article of yours isn’t really helping us to better understand what’s been happening in Hong Kong.
True, I’m acutely aware of the fact that Hong Kong’s struggle has attracted an unprecedented level of international attention – a by-product of China’s far-reaching influence in the affairs of our world – while people in Kashmir, Palestine, West Papua, or anywhere under authoritarian rule continue to suffer grave and unfathomable assaults on basic rights and freedom. But one thing doesn’t negate the other, the same way #BlackLivesMatter doesn’t mean their lives are beyond the others. (The fact that this needs to be explained is baffling.)
The way you pit some protestors’ questionable and even condemnable tactics against police brutality and state-sponsored violence without acknowledging the fundamental issues of unequal power dynamics and social contract is problematic. Protestors perpetrating those criminal acts are always met with the full force of the law; there are police officers and prosecutors whose job is to have them apprehended.
Whereas the Hong Kong Police has, to date, refused to admit any abuse of power on their part or form an internal disciplinary investigation into the numerous accounts of torture and sexual abuse. This suppression of information, their overt denial of any wrongdoing, and our society’s inability to hold them accountable, warrant the amount of media coverage as opposed to the incidences you cited. Just imagine how many stories have failed to go to print because the journalists have no means to verify them for these exact reasons?
Lastly, yes, it may not be surprising or shocking that China would pass similar laws – but facts remain that they didn’t honor the promises enshrined in a recognized treaty (i.e. The Sino-British Joint Declaration). This security law was forcefully imposed without appealing to our parliament. Given China’s notorious track record in human rights, the concerns over its sweeping effects on civic liberty and press freedom, is totally legitimate.
Your categorization of young activists appealing to US officials as “open collusion” (while citing a questionable source) shows that you are as biased as the media narratives you seek to criticise. Appealing for international interventions (including bi-partisan lobbying efforts) has long been one of the strategies used by advocacy groups around the world.
And hey, the fact that the British colonizers didn’t grant us democracy doesn’t mean we can’t fight for it today, in the 21st century.
Brilliant post from Ms. Chow: forcefully articulated, incontrovertible challenge to FAIR/Cho.
There are 2 sides of the story. Trump never cared about HK and his admin enforcing sanctions, only hurts the hong kongers and he won’t really care if Hk falls.
You really think Trump and Pompeo has Hong Kong’s best interests? They already ignore their own domestic protesters” rights currently which shows that it was never for democracy but only a purely polotical agenda. Pompeo and trump had spread debunked theories of debt trap diplomacy and lab virus conspiracies. Not to help china but contain it. The law will stop their meddling and ill will.
A survey from a London poll indicated that hong kongers see the US as a bigger threat and not really an ally. And a study by Liz Jackson show just how shallow and biased western media can be. In her study titled “How the media creates fear, from the USA and UK to Hong Kong”.
You should read that study and take notes. HONG KONG follows a heavy capitalistic model that put corps ahead of its people. Yet the rich is rarely attacked as ironically the protesters are mostly right wing and some are not really different from typical trump supporters. In terms of localist mentaility and calling mainlanders to “go back to china” and “locusts”. And even preventing NORMAL civillians to be able to go to work by blocking roads and subways.
Even american Floyd protesters don’t target the innocent civillian population for politics. And hurt their livelihood. That’s bullying of people who don’t want to be collateral of china america power struggle.
Clearly after a year of protest. Despite protesters literally shooting arrows at police, amd stopping INNOCENT civillians from going to work and provide a living for themselves. No protesters have been killed as the police have been restrained. However many normal civillians are impacted by the protesters’ road blocks and bullying.
Many hong kongers also do not see america as helping or an ally and why many support the national security law as they had enough of trump bavked unempathetic teens hurting their livelihoods and destroying the city.
They matter too. If you were a journalist, you would have heard that “western media were quick to let the world know 600,000 Hongkongers had expressed opposition to the NSL, but there was hardly a word about the more than 2.9 million and 1.7 million people who signed petitions, respectively, supporting the law and demanding that the US stop meddling in the city’s internal affairs. Those numbers suggested the majority of Hong Kong residents did not share the West’s “grave concern.
Source of above excerpt~ (Real reason for ‘grave concern’ over HK security law By KEN MOAK)
There are 2 sides of the story. Trump never cared about HK and his admin enforcing sanctions, only hurts the hong kongers and he won’t really care if Hk falls.
You really think Trump and Pompeo has Hong Kong’s best interests? They already ignore their own domestic protesters” rights currently which shows that it was never for democracy but only a purely polotical agenda. Pompeo and trump had spread debunked theories of debt trap diplomacy and lab virus conspiracies. Not to help china but contain it. The law will stop their meddling and ill will.
A survey from a London poll indicated that hong kongers see the US as a bigger threat and not really an ally. And a study by Liz Jackson show just how shallow and biased western media can be. In her study titled “How the media creates fear, from the USA and UK to Hong Kong”.
You should read that study and take notes. HONG KONG follows a heavy capitalistic model that put corps ahead of its people. Yet the rich is rarely attacked as ironically the protesters are mostly right wing and some are not really different from typical trump supporters. In terms of localist mentaility and calling mainlanders to “go back to china” and “locusts”. And even preventing NORMAL civillians to be able to go to work by blocking roads and subways.
Even american Floyd protesters don’t target the innocent civillian population for politics. And hurt their livelihood. That’s bullying of people who don’t want to be collateral of china america power struggle.
Clearly after a year of protest. Despite protesters literally shooting arrows at police, amd stopping INNOCENT civillians from going to work and provide a living for themselves. No protesters have been killed as the police have been restrained. However many normal civillians are impacted by the protesters’ road blocks and bullying.
Many hong kongers also do not see america as helping or an ally and why many support the national security law as they had enough of trump bavked unempathetic teens hurting their livelihoods and destroying the city.
They matter too. If you were a journalist, you would have read that ASIA TIIME PIECE.
I quote:
“western media were quick to let the world know 600,000 Hongkongers had expressed opposition to the NSL, but there was hardly a word about the more than 2.9 million and 1.7 million people who signed petitions, respectively, supporting the law and demanding that the US stop meddling in the city’s internal affairs. Those numbers suggested the majority of Hong Kong residents did not share the West’s “grave concern.
Source of above quote (Real reason for ‘grave concern’ over HK security law By KEN MOAK)
I would indeed rejoice if “protestors perpetrating those criminal acts” are actually “met with full force of the law”, but it is not this day. Look at how many were out there smashing store windows and setting fire to so-called China-related company retail shops. Look at how many were out there vandalizing MTR and public transport facilities, hurling bicycles into railway tracks and cables. Look at how many were out there beating up others simply because others disagree with their position – more than that actually, one person was set on fire and another killed by a hurled brick. Look at how many were there revealing personal details of family members of policemen and then encouraged even school bullying to little children. And of course, look at the girl who claimed to be shot blind by the police but actively opposed to the admission of her medical report which should logically prove the truthfulness of her account. Finally, look at how many judges out there are actually passing lenient sentences and granting bail even if defendants’ chances of re-offending is concretely high.
Oh and I almost forgot – look at how many members of the press who believe themselves to be noble watchers of the government are actually physically shielding protestors from the police and refused to give way even upon numerous warnings being given.
I mean, in an ideal world, protests are peaceful and the press is objective and neutral, but neither happened in Hong Kong.
Though to be fair, that’s a poor argument to bring every protester in jail…
This article is a thousand times more bias than any Western media reports.
First, Haiti, Ecuador, and Chile are not “client states” of the US. They are completely sovereign countries with their own elected officials that have completely independence. If anything, Canada and the UK are closer to “client states” of the US. For that matter, Burma, Cambodia, North Korea and Kazakhstan can be called client states of the PRC. Unlike Haiti, Chile, and Ecuador, those countries have no democracy and protests are met with bullets.
Second, you forgot to mention that, unlike Hong Kong, Puerto Rico has held a total of five referendums on their status and until 2012 that they decided to change their common wealth status. Hong Konger have never once had a chance to vote on their self-determination. When the vote for statehood finally came up the biggest party on the island boycotted the polls.
Third, unlike Hong Kongers, Puerto Ricans have the right to protest. Anyone in Puerto Rico can wave a banner that says “overthrow the US government and down with Trump.” Anyone in Hong Kong who waves a banner that says “down with the CCP” will now be arrested. Puerto Ricans can protest, organize political parties, start their own press or media, travel freely inside the US, and elect their own local officials. These are all denied to Hong Kongers.
This is nothing but whatabouism. FAIR is probably being paid by CCP money to say this wumao garbage.
I am saddened to see FAIR descend into these tankie tendencies. The western media certainly is biased but that doesn’ t mean we should view every nominal US rival power positively or stand against democratic movements and people in other countries fighting for their rights.
If you are sufficiently zealous in your ideological tendencies, pointing out hypocrisy in how western media covers oppression carried out by enemies compared to how it covers oppression by the US and its client states will come across as viewing rival powers positively. You completely missed the point.
Hong Kong is a true bona-fide fascist bastion of the west, or a western ‘beachhead’ that protects and nutures Cantofascism or canto-nativism if you like.
Therefore China needs to have a long term plan for Hong Kong. People need to be moved out of the territory as it is way overcrowded. Those who are loyal and peaceful should be settled in the mainland WHILE those who wave British, American and other foreign flags should be asked to leave.
At the end of it, Hong Kong should be given to the Chinese Navy to be used as a shooting and bombing range for its own use. (The US and others use foreign countries to test their military assets and foreign civilians as free cannon fodder unlike China).
Good article showing that sometimes when the ‘glove is on the other hand, it’s a foot’. The US MSM just can’t go-wrong criticizing our ‘official enemies’ (China, Russia, Iran, N.Korea, etc) while ignoring or soft-pedaling our ‘allies’ for the same or worse policies & actions.
Also great comments by ‘Steven’, ‘the other Martin’ & ‘Babbo’ — thanks for taking the time to educate some of the less-informed and/or right-wing readers.
Eddie S., my man, take a look at the photograph that accompanied FAIR/Cho’s nonsense. Who in that picture is wearing the “Courage” T-Shirt? Not the cops, who you, and the other Martin, doublepost Steven, and FAIR/Cho posit as the innocent and holy defenders against anti-authoritarian “subversion.”
If you’d like to notice, the fawners over autocrats, the yellers for “Lock ’em Up,” the lovers of state violence such as shall be meted out in the most brutal of terms for that protestor, are commonly defined as “right-wingers.” Are you trying to reverse that?
FAIR/Cho have also been accused in these comment sections of being paid by the CCP. No response. Shall we deem that a “yes” then?
On the topic of FAIR, they have actually posted articles critical of China (ex. https://fair.org/home/chinese-censorship-of-us-media-new-spin-on-an-old-tactic/), but their job in general is to criticise media bias. So the reason they seem to be defending China more often than not in your eyes is simply b/c the state of media bias on China in the Anglo world has been that great these days.
If we want to talk about “fawners over autocrats”, authoritarian countries like Singapore & Vietnam are widely accepted, if not praised, in the West. And Israel & India will always have staunch support among the right.
US media representing different cases inconsistently or not, nations are bullshit and no-one should support any area being incorporated into them against their will.
Of course it’s not an act of imperialism. Everyone knows Hong Kong belongs to China but it is an act of repression. Please let’s not defend State Capitalist Stalinist methods of repression simply because the imperialists, the US and the UK are worse at doing it. These security laws were intended for the whole of China not just Hong Kong..
One thing Cho ignored: Hong Kong received unprecedented attention because it is considered to be more newsworthy than the other mentioned countries. Readers care about Hong Kong because they have interest there. Does American businessmen have more interest in Haiti than HK?
Excellent article. The Hong Kong protesters lack common sense and basic morality, and their cheerleaders in the West are bloodthirsty imperialists who think nothing of the human destruction that they are endorsing.