THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK: BEIJING DECLARES

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 HONG KONG 000100 SIPDIS DEPT FOR EAP/FO - PDAS DONOVAN; ALSO FOR EAP/CM AND DRL E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/19/2020 TAGS: PGOV PHUM HK CH SUBJECT: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK: BEIJING DECLARES "REFERENDUM" AGAINST BASIC LAW REF: (A) MARUT-BARTE E-MAIL 1/15/10 (B) 09 HONG KONG 2337 (C) HONG KONG 16 AND PREVIOUS Classified By: Acting Consul General Christopher Marut for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d). ¶1. (C) Summary: Beijing made its first direct response to plans by Hong Kong's Civic Party and League of Social Democrats (LSD) to use five legislative by-elections as a de facto referendum on constitutional reform by means of a January 15 statement issued through Xinhua (text below) that declared the "referendum" at odds with Hong Kong's Basic Law. It praised Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen's rejection of the "referendum" as without legal force under Hong Kong law, and believed Hong Kong people would not accept the efforts of the parties to hinder Hong Kong's political development. To underscore the point, Hong Kong MFA Deputy Commissioner Zhan Yongxin separately pulled aside the acting Consul General and the British Deputy Consul General at an MFA reception that day to present a copy of the statement and warn us that the referendum constituted a "red line" for Beijing. He also urged the United States and UK to refrain from public comment. End summary. ¶2. (C) Comment: What Beijing hopes to gain from its statement is not clear. Even the most militant partisans among the Civics and LSD never expected even winning back all five legislative seats would earn them more than moral authority, since it is widely believed that Beijing has no interest and no need to do a deal with the pan-democrats. The Basic Law is silent on the issue of referenda, so while Beijing is correct that the pan-dems' move has no legal basis and no force, neither is it a violation of any law. There are two possible unintended consequences of Beijing's stance. First, Beijing's actions could drum up support for the vote among fence-sitters in the democratic camp. Second, the pro-Beijing parties may no longer be clear on their instructions. If the by-election is an illegitimate referendum, they should not endorse it with their participation. If the by-election is just a by-election (i.e., we don't care what the pan-dems say it is),then they should run with the intention of picking up seats. LegCo President Jasper Tsang Yok-sing of the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong endorsed the latter view over the weekend, but as he sometimes free-lances some quite independent-minded ideas, the faithful may look for more specific instructions. End comment. -------------- Beijing Breaks its Silence -------------- ¶3. (C) During a January 15 Lunar New Year Reception the PRC MFA Liaison office in Hong Kong, MFA Deputy Commissioner Zhan Yongxin pulled aside the acting Consul General to express concern over the Civic Party and League of Social Democrats' plans to use five legislative by-elections as a "referendum" on constitutional reform. The "referendum" represented a "red line" for the central government, Zhan explained, and Beijing was sufficiently concerned that it "had to make a statement." ¶4. (C) Zhan drew from a two-page Chinese-language statement from the State Council's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office (HKMAO) as reported in Xinhua January 15 (OSC translation below). Zhan remarked that the statement had been approved at the highest levels in Beijing. He continued that there was no legal basis to hold a referendum in Hong Kong, that China believed most Hong Kong citizens opposed the proposed referendum, that China,s top leaders opposed it, and that the proposal represented a challenge to both the Basic Law and the 2007 decision of the National People,s Congress Standing Committee on Hong Kong,s constitutional development. Zhan said the Central Government appreciated the statement Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen made January 14 rejecting the "referendum" as lacking a legal basis and declaring the Hong Kong government would not be bound by any interpretation of the voting result. ¶5. (C) Zhan expressed the hope that foreign countries would be cautious and suggested "it would be best to not say anything." The acting Consul General undertook to pass on Zhan's remarks and the HKMAO statement to Washington. Later during the reception, the acting Consul General confirmed with representatives from the British Consulate General that the MFA had passed the HKMAO statement to their Deputy Consul General that evening with essentially the same verbal message. Other EU consulates and the Canadians who attended the reception indicated that they were not approached. HONG KONG 00000100 002 OF 003 -------------- Text of Xinhua Report -------------- ¶6. (U) Begin text: Beijing, 15 Jan (Xinhua) -- On 15 January, a spokesman of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office of the State Council made a statement on the "five-district referendum movement," launched by individual organizations in Hong Kong and related to Hong Kong's future constitutional development. The entire statement is as follows: Individual organizations in Hong Kong society have recently announced the launch of a "five-district referendum movement" with the purpose of "achieving real universal suffrage as soon as possible and abolishing the constitutional functional constituency (Hong Kong's functional constituencies)." We are seriously concerned about the issue. Generally speaking, a "referendum" is stipulated by constitutional law and is a constitutional arrangement that carries specific political and legal meanings. The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region does not stipulate (specify) a "referendum" system. The Hong Kong Special Administration Region is a local administrative region of the People's Republic of China. It is not entitled to establish a "referendum" system. Carrying out a so-called "referendum" in the Hong Kong Special Administration Region has no basis in its constitutional law and is not legally binding. The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region and the related decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress has already clearly stipulated the future constitutional development of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region. This encompasses the principles and procedures that must be followed in relation to universal suffrage for the election of the chief executive and the Legislative Council. Carrying out a so-called "referendum" in any form regarding the future constitutional development of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region is incompatible with the legal status (powers) of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region. Such a move would be in fundamental violation of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region and the related decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. With the great support of the central government and the collective efforts of different sectors across Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Special Administration Region has managed to effectively tackle the onslaught of the international financial crisis and to maintain economic and social stability. Some people are deliberately promoting the so-called "five-district referendum movement" and blatantly challenging the Basic Law and the related decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. This will only trigger controversy and undermine the positive conditions that have been hard won. It is believed that this is something the Hong Kong public does not want to see. We have noted that many people in the Hong Kong Special Administration Region have expressed staunch opposition to the "five-district referendum movement." At the Legislative Council question and answer session held on the afternoon of 14 January, Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen said that carrying out a so-called "referendum" in any form in Hong Kong had absolutely no legal basis and was not legally binding, and that the SAR government would not acknowledge it. With regard to Hong Kong's constitutional development, we must strictly act according to procedures stipulated by the Basic Law, regardless of how different our views and positions are. Any act that departs from the procedures stipulated in the Basic Law will not help create consensus in society. The above-mentioned view expressed by Chief Executive Donald Tsang and Hong Kong people is in line with the Basic Law and the related decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. We commend that. We believe that people from different sectors across the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region can certainly tell right from wrong. On the basis of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the related decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, we believe they can hold discussions in a rational and practical manner on the amendment of the electoral method for selecting the chief executive and forming the Legco in 2012, so that the gradual development of the constitutional system of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region can be advanced. End text. HONG KONG 00000100 003 OF 003 MARUT