When Hong Kong was handed over to China by the United Kingdom 1997, the city was given a mini-Constitution called the “Basic Law.” Article 23 of the Basic Law states that Hong Kong shall enact laws of its own to prohibit various national security offenses. The law did not pass, however, and was scrapped after mass protests in 2003. And in 2020, the Central Government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) imposed a separate national security law on Hong Kong, citing the city’s delay in acting on Article 23.

This year on March 19th, Article 23 was passed unanimously by the city’s parliament and it came into effect just days later. The law covers five types of crime: treason, insurrection and incitement to mutiny, theft of state secrets, and espionage, sabotage, and external interference. Critics say that Article 23 could lead to even further erosions of civil liberties in Hong Kong.

To discuss Article 23 and its implications, host Bonnie Glaser is joined by Dr. Eric Yan-ho Lai. Dr. Lai is a Research Fellow at the Georgetown Center for Asian Law, an Associate Fellow at the Hong Kong Studies Hub of the University of Surrey, and a member of the Asian Civil Society Research Network.

Timestamps

[01:47] Understanding PRC Definitions Used in Article 23

[03:37] Why was Article 23 passed now?

[05:23] Compressed Timeline for Unanimous Approval

[09:05] Shift in Risk Assessment for Multinational Corporations

[12:03] Precedents for Targeting Diaspora Communities

[14:17] Reactions to Article 23 from the International Community

[15:54] What are some concrete actions that could be taken to signal concern?

[17:55] Do the PRC and Hong Kong care about international perceptions?

[19:36] Implementation of Article 23 Moving Forward

[21:28] Passage of Additional Security Legislature

[22:57] Forecast for the Future of Hong Kong

In the past decade, policy toward China has hardened on both sides of the Atlantic. Governments and publics across Europe and in the United States view Xi Jinping as implementing more repressive policies domestically and more aggressive policies abroad. The US and most capitals in Europe see Beijing as seeking to revise the international order in ways that would be disadvantageous to democracies. They agree on the need for de-risking and to preserve the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.

Yet, despite the alignment in transatlantic assessments, cooperation on China remains limited. A new paper by experts from Chatham House and RUSI, leading think tanks in the United Kingdom, analyzes why transatlantic mechanisms have made slow progress, focusing on three domains: economics; security; and the multilateral system and global norms. The paper also offers ways to strengthen cooperation going forward.

The title of the report is “Transatlantic China Policy: In Search of an Endgame?” Host Bonnie Glaser is joined by one of its authors, Ben Bland who is the director of the Asia-Pacific program at Chatham House. His research focuses on the nexus of politics, economics, and international relations in Southeast Asia, as well as China’s growing role in the broader region and the contours of US–China strategic competition.

Timestamps

[01:46] Why did you pursue this research on transatlantic mechanism?

[03:24] Importance of Agreeing on an Endgame

[06:30] Consensus and Divergence between the US and Europe

[10:10] De-risking: One Word, Many Meanings

[15:00] Transatlantic Discussions on European and Indo-Pacific Security

[18:40] Can a regional division of labor strategy work?

[22:13] China, the Multilateral System, and Global Norms

[27:00] Tensions Between EU Multilateralism and Transatlantic Consensus

[31:10] What are the next steps for Chatham House?

On a previous episode of the China Global Podcast, we discussed Beijing’s position on the conflict in Gaza during the early days following Hamas’ attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023. Today, we discuss one of the conflict’s spillover effects– the attacks on cargo and trade ships transiting the Red Sea by the Houthis, an Iranian-backed Shia group governing parts of Yemen. While the Chinese-brokered rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran was as the beginning of a “wave of reconciliation” in the region by China’s foreign minister Wang Yi, the resurgence of violence since October 7th has proven that prediction to be overly optimistic.

At face value, disruptions of global trade may seem to run counter to Chinese interests, but Beijing’s hesitance to become more deeply involved in the crisis may tell us something about China’s calculations in this crisis. It may also show the limits of Chinese influence in the region.

Host Bonnie Glaser is joined by Ahmed Aboudouh. Ahmed is an associate fellow with the Middle East and North Africa Program at Chatham House, a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council, and heads the China Studies research unit at the Emirates Policy Center. His research focuses on China’s rising influence in the Middle East and North Africa region, Gulf geopolitics, and the effects of China-US competition worldwide.

Timestamps

[01:36] China’s Statement on Palestine at the International Court of Justice

[08:20] Why is China indirectly supporting Hamas despite its relations with Israel?

[12:11] Effectiveness of China’s Narrative Critical of America and the West

[16:54] Israel, Palestine, and China’s Diplomatic Calculus

[20:12] China’s Hesitance to Counter the Houthis in the Red Sea

[25:15] Does China have leverage over Iran, and if so, will they use it?

[29:59] Circumstances for Deeper Chinese Involvement