August, 2001: Cover Story
By Greg Rushford
Published in The Rushford Report
The still-inexperienced President George W. Bush didn’t know the right questions to ask Hong Kong’s chief executive, C.H. Tung, when the two leaders met in the White House on July 11
July 11 was a pleasant day in Washington: sunshine, blue skies, temperature in the comfortable 80’s, blessedly low humidity. And as C.H. Tung emerged shortly after 5:00 p.m. from a half-hour meeting at the White House with President George W. Bush, Hong Kong’s chief executive had a smile to match the late afternoon sun.
“I had a very good meeting with the president,” a beaming Tung told reporters gathered on the West Lawn. “I had the opportunity to tell the president, since the return of Hong Kong, ‘one country, two systems,’ is the everyday reality.” The Hong Kong chief executive — also known as Tung Chee-hwa — said that he and Mr. Bush discussed the “full range of issues.” Beyond that, the Hong Kong leader offered few details.
Turns out that there weren’t many details to divulge. The new American president, who had never met the Hong Kong chief executive before, seemed content to take at face value Tung’s general assurances that, under his leadership, Hong Kong’s freedoms were “alive and kicking.”
Only a few hours before the Tung-Bush meeting, Tung’s subordinates in Hong Kong had been busy kicking through the Legislative Council a Chief Executive Election Bill that explicitly gives Beijing the power to fire any chief executive at will. The measure was furiously objected to by lawmakers who advocate democracy. But George W. Bush was uncurious.
“That did not come up in the meeting with the president,” a senior Bush administration official told reporters at a “background” briefing in the White House. Under the rules of the briefing, reporters were asked not to identify the official.
The senior U.S. official said that the election issue had come up earlier that afternoon at the State Department, where Tung met with Secretary Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage. Tung “indicated that it’s been well established for a long time that China has the right to take that action, and codifies it into law,” the official related. “And so he gave some explanation, I think, of that legislative act this morning.”
There is always an explanation.
Every time that Tung does something to demonstrate that he is Beijing’s
man first, and Hong Kong’s second, there has been some sort of excuse.
But the worries continue to cumulate.
When asked at the White House press briefing if President Bush understands
the serious concerns that have been raised to the effect that Tung doesn’t
act like a man who gets democracy, the senior official punted.
“There was no, as I said, detail of this in the discussion with the President.” He added: “The chief executive, I think, has made pretty clear his commitment to a gradual democracy in Hong Kong.”
In his meeting with Tung, President Bush seemed most interested in communicating his views on China, not Hong Kong. “The president made the point to the chief executive that he was strongly committed to a constructive dialogue with the People’s Republic of China; that he had detected an ability to work through problems, a vision to see beyond these things and to move in that direction,” the senior Bush briefer told reporters. Later in the meeting, Bush “mentioned his concerns for religious freedom” in Hong Kong, the senior official added.
But those concerns seem to have been mentioned in general terms, and mostly in passing. “The president…took no view on the future of economy or politics on Hong Kong,” the anonymous briefer acknowledged.
Consider this exchange from the background press briefing:
Reporter: When Mr. Tung came here under President Clinton, there was discussion about the pace of democracy. Did that issue arise here, and does the President happen to feel that there could be a faster pace, or should be a faster pace of democracy?
Senior administration official: The President didn’t express that view. The general thrust of the Chief Executive’s remarks was that that was proceeding, but I’m not aware of any discussion, I didn’t hear any discussion of whether that should go faster or slower, or whether it’s going just right or not.
Need more convincing that the Bush-Tung meeting was mostly Pabulum?
Reporter: There have been comments from the consulate general on Hong Kong earlier this year that Hong Kong can be a case more of one country than two systems at times. Has Mr. Tung said anything in either the State Department meetings or the presidential meeting to overturn that view?”
Senior administration official: Yes, I think he has, because particularly on his emphasis on the freedoms that people have in Hong Kong to pursue various personal interests on their own, and that he expresses a lot of pride in the one country-two systems as a combination formula.
Hearing that last remark, U.S. Consul General in Hong Kong, Michael Klosson — who had raised those concerns in a speech in Houston in February about “bumps” along Hong Kong’s path to democracy, and who was in the briefing room — acquired the look of a man who wished he was invisible.
During his two-day Washington visit, Tung — who is expected to be reappointed to a second five-year term by Beijing next July — showed little interest in impressing upon the public that he fully grasps the meaning of the word democracy. The Hong Kong leader stuck to his habit of meeting reporters on the fly, only for a few minutes between meetings. He ducked out when the questions turned serious.
On the West Lawn, I asked Tung if he would care to try to dissuade critics that his views on universal suffrage for Hong Kong are essentially the same as those in Beijing. He ignored the question (not for the first time). Hong Kong’s Basic Law says that the territory can have universal suffrage after 2007, if it wants. Last year, Hong Kong’s secretary for constitutional affairs, Michael Suen, let it be known that he was planning to take a serious look at beginning the process. But Suen backed off, obviously under pressure from Tung.
While he doesn’t consider universal suffrage a fit topic for public conversation, Tung meanwhile goes out of his way to pass a law that makes explicit Beijing’s powers to fire any chief executive. He was concerned that there was only implicit authority in Hong Kong’s Basic Law for Beijing to do such a thing, and wanted to make sure it was explicit. Talk about priorities.
Even so-called “pro-Beijing” lawmakers in Hong Kong like Tsang Yok-sing, chairman of the Development Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong, (called DAB), say that they advocate moving towards universal suffrage for Hong Kong. While many would take issue with the DAB’s leftist stance on economic issues, that’s not the main point. DAB politicians like Tsang are doing what political parties ought to do in a democracy: speaking out, and organizing to persuade their constituency to the party’s point of view (see, the Rushford Report, Is Hong Kong becoming a backwater? April 2001, page 2).
By contrast, Tung doesn’t seem to know exactly what constituency he is supposed to be representing. But he comes across as more “pro-Beijing” than the DAB.
I asked Stephen Lam, Tung’s Information Coordinator who flew to Washington with the chief executive, if Tung would agree that it is offensive that mainland Chinese authorities do not allow respected members of Hong Kong’s Bar and elected Legislative Council members like Margaret Ng and Martin Lee to travel to the mainland. I also asked Lam about those Hong Kong academics who have been snatched at the Chinese border by the secret police. Shouldn’t a Hong Kong chief executive be outspoken about this?
Basically, Lam answered the questions by saying that Tung believes that how mainland authorities treat Hong Kong people is the business of the mainland.
“These acts are really part of ‘one country, two systems,’” the spokesman responded.
“It’s not for us to interfere with the administration of law,” Lam continued.
“However, from time to time we do relay our wishes,” he added, referring to a Hong Kong democracy advocate who was allowed to travel to the mainland to see a sick relative.
Tung’s refusal to stand up for the rights of Hong Kong people like Margaret Ng and Martin Lee to be able to travel to the mainland is particularly rich in irony.
Last month, Martin Lee expressed delight that Beijing had been picked to host the 2008 Olympic summer games. Of course, if those games were held today, Lee would not be allowed to attend. The irony for Tung is demonstrated by an exchange he had with journalists at a World Association of Newspapers conference in Hong Kong in June. Then, Tung reacted strongly to criticisms that the press is not free in China. “I challenge you to visit the cities and villages in China and hear the voices of the people everywhere,” Tung told the journalists. “I am confident that you will change your minds.” Yet when Hong Kong lawmakers like Lee say they, too, should be allowed to travel to China so they can see for themselves what’s going on, Tung remains silent.
The point isn’t that Hong Kong has gone to hell in the four years since the former British colony reverted to mainland China. It hasn’t. Hong Kong remains a sparkling and vibrant city. Anyone who was fortunate enough to see the Hong Kong Film Festival 2001 last month, held here at the Freer Gallery of Art, would attest to the vibrancy of the Hong Kong art scene. That’s just one of many indicators that individuality and freedom of expression remain alive and well in Hong Kong.
Every day, Hong Kong newspapers report news and opinions that journalists on the mainland would be jailed for writing, if they dared. (Hong Kong’s chief flack, Stephen Lam, took critical questions here last month with more feisty good humor than your average American government flack. It was the American spokesmen who were too timid to attach their names to any quotes during Tung‘s visit.)
And for all his bark against the Falun Gong “evil cult” — which mainland authorities fear but which has never broken any laws in Hong Kong — Tung has not cracked down on the group, despite pressures from the mainland to do so.
Still, the fears persist that under Tung’s leadership, Hong Kong’s cherished way of life is slowly dying the proverbial death of a thousand cuts. Tung has always been known as “Beijing’s man.” (In fact, that’s exactly how then-U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor’s appointment log identified Tung, who visited Kantor in Washington before Hong Kong’s 1997 handover, according to Kantor’s logs obtained under the Freedom of Information Act).
But while Tung should be credited with not (yet) repressing the Falun Gong, the fact that he has branded the (so-far hugely peaceful) group an “evil cult” is disturbing, if you understand the distinction between Hong Kong and the mainland.
Last month, Tung’s security chief, Regina Ip, told the Wall Street Journal that “the government always has to take a stand and urge the people to tell right from wrong, tell the good from the evil.” Mr. Tung‘s stance on the Falun Gong showed that he “was working in accordance with that tradition,” Ip explained.
The problem is that Ip was referring to mainland China’s tradition, not Hong Kong’s. Hong Kong is such a shining example for a China that is struggling to modernize precisely because Hong Kong people put the Common Law’s protections of individual freedoms ahead of Confucius. Hong Kong observes the rule of law. Mainland China’s tradition is rule by law — meaning subjects are expected to obey the rules laid down by the government.
As Hugo Restall pointed out in the Asian Wall Street Journal on July 18, Tung should be following the culture of Hong Kong.
Did anybody explain the importance of this to the uncurious George W? Was his meeting with Tung another sign that the new president is still at the low end of the foreign-policy learning curve? Didn’t anyone tell Bush how important it is to impress upon Tung that when it comes to freedoms, Hong Kong should be influencing China and not the other way around?
Could be that George W. was briefed by his father. Perhaps the Tung-Bush meeting illustrates the power of personal connections. As Greg Torode has reported in the South China Morning Post, Tung has long been close to the first President Bush and the Bush family. Former first lady Barbara Bush showed up to help then-shipping tycoon Tung launch a container carrier in Long Beach in 1996. The elder George Bush visited Hong Kong twice in 1999, where he was full of praises for Tung’s administration. And this May, the former president was again in Hong Kong, where he set up several meetings for the Carlyle Group Advisory Board for Asia, the Post reported.
President George W. Bush’s nephew George P. Bush, a law student at the University of Texas, has been working in the Hong Kong office of Fulbright & Jaworski this summer. The South China Morning Post reported last month that the 25-year old George P. has met Hong Kong billionaire tycoons including Richard and Victor Li, and patriarch Li Ka-shing. George P. called his new friends “really pleasant guys, really down to earth.” Young George P., the son of Florida Governor Jeb Bush, has also met Tung Chee-hwa several times.
When he also had the opportunity to meet Tung in the White House, no doubt George W. also found the affable Tung to be a pleasant guy.
Pleasant, at least, until you try to get him to talk about taboo subjects like universal suffrage, without which Hong Kong’s cherished freedoms will surely be gradually eroded. The impression lingers that for the new President Bush, his first meeting with Hong Kong’s chief executive was an opportunity missed.