Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Saturday, December 23, 2000Hong Kong keeps
law restricting protestsThe issue: The Hong Kong Legislative Council has voted to retain a law requiring seven days' advance notice for marches and rallies.
THE limits of democracy in Hong Kong under Chinese Communist control were underlined when the Legislative Council voted to retain a law restricting public assemblies.
The law requires demonstrators to notify the police seven days in advance of marches involving 30 people or more or rallies by more than 50. Pro-democracy legislators, academics and citizens have criticized the law as a curb on freedom of expression and the right of assembly.
Some lawmakers opposed the law so strongly that they participated in illegal protests against it. But the Legislative Council, which is controlled by pro-Beijing allies of Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa, supported a motion to continue the restriction.
The vote was the latest in a series of developments indicating a tightening of Beijing's grip on Hong Kong despite China's pledge of non-interference in its affairs.
A low turnout in legislative elections in September appeared to reflect a perception that the council has no power to effect change. Only 24 members of the 60-seat council are directly elected; another 30 are elected by "functional constituences" -- professional and other interest groups that can be pressured to toe the administration line.
The pro-Chinese Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong increased its seats from five to 11 and its share of the vote to nearly 30 percent. Although the Democratic Party, the main pro-democracy group, retained the 12 seats it had previously held, its share of the vote fell.
Earlier, two officials of Hong Kong University resigned after an inquiry found that they had pressured a professor to suppress opinion survey data indicating a decline in the popularity of Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa. An aide to Tung was also implicated.
Last year, the 10th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre was marked in Hong Kong by a candlelight vigil of 70,000 people. Organizers of the event found themselves barred from travel to mainland China.
When they complained to Tung, they were told he was likely to be more successful in intervening with Beijing on their behalf if they agreed to end their sponsorship of the annual vigils. This year the turnout was much lower.
In a case involving the rights of four Chinese citizens whose parents were citizens of Hong Kong, Tung's government sided with Beijing against a ruling of Hong Kong's highest court that the four were entitled to Hong Kong citizenship. This indicated that Beijing will not recognize the authority of the Hong Kong courts when their decisions conflict with its interests.
Hong Kong seems to be functioning much as it did under British rule before the 1997 handover, with individual freedoms and a measure of democratic government, but those freedoms are being eroded. China promised to keep its hands off Hong Kong but is quietly asserting its power. Making it difficult to hold marches and rallies is one way to restrict dissent.
U.S. should
apologize
THE government is making a mistake by refusing to apologize or grant financial compensation for the killing of Korean civilians by American soldiers early in the Korean War. That decision isn't official as yet but has been disclosed by senior members of the Clinton administration.
By contrast, Washington agreed last year to pay $28 million to China for damage resulting from the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, in addition to $4.5 million in compensation to injured persons and the families of those who died.
Although no one knows the exact number, witnesses -- former GIs and Korean survivors -- have said from 100 to possibly 300 people died at No Gun Ri during a three-day period in July 1950.
In his first public comment on results of the investigation, Army Secretary Louis Caldera told reporters last week he no longer doubted "there was loss of life" at No Gun Ri. "That was very regrettable," he said. Caldera added the investigation found no definitive evidence that the soldiers fired on direct orders.
On Tuesday, No Gun Ri survivors and their lawyer held a news conference in Washington to state their belief that the Army investigation was a "whitewash." They also said they should be included in negotiations about financial compensation.
Former Rep. Pete McCloskey, R-Calif., a member of a civilian advisory panel monitoring the Army probe, said this month that he disagreed with the reported conclusion of Army investigators denying sufficient evidence to prove the soldiers at No Gun Ri had orders to fire on refugees.
McCloskey said the Pentagon had been too quick to dismiss the testimony of ex-GIs, and he would ask for a revision of the Army's report. "There is no question that there were orders," McCloskey said.
In a Pulitzer Prize-winning series of reports on No Gun Ri that prompted the official investigation, the Associated Press quoted ex-GIs and Korean survivors as saying a large number of refugees were killed by U.S. troops.
The AP also cited wartime documents that showed orders were passed from at least three high-level Army headquarters and an Air Force command to treat as hostile any civilians approaching U.S. positions.
After all these years it may be impossible to verify all the details of this dreadful incident, but enough facts have been established to warrant both an apology and compensation.
Survivors 'don't forget'
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
