Hong Kong’s Freedoms: What China Promised and How It’s Cracking Down
Backgrounder

Hong Kong’s Freedoms: What China Promised and How It’s Cracking Down

Beijing has tightened its grip on Hong Kong in recent years, dimming hopes that the financial center will ever become a full democracy.
Daniel Wong Kwok-tung, a lawyer, is arrested by Hong Kong police in January 2021.
Daniel Wong Kwok-tung, a lawyer, is arrested by Hong Kong police in January 2021. Tyrone Siu/Reuters
Summary
  • Before the British government handed over Hong Kong in 1997, China agreed to allow the region considerable political autonomy for fifty years under a framework known as “one country, two systems.” 
  • In recent years, Beijing has cracked down on Hong Kong’s freedoms, stoking mass protests in the city and drawing international criticism. 
  • Beijing imposed a national security law in 2020 that gave it broad new powers to punish critics and silence dissenters, which has fundamentally altered life for Hong Kongers.

Introduction

China pledged to preserve much of what makes Hong Kong unique when the former British colony was handed over in 1997. Beijing said it would give Hong Kong fifty years to keep its capitalist system and enjoy many freedoms not found in mainland Chinese cities. 

More From Our Experts

But more than halfway through the transition, Beijing has taken increasingly brazen steps to encroach on Hong Kong’s political system and crack down on dissent. In 2020, Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law on Hong Kong. Since then, authorities have arrested dozens of pro-democracy activists, lawmakers, and journalists; curbed voting rights; and limited freedoms of the press and speech. In March 2024, Hong Kong lawmakers passed Article 23, an additional security legislation that further cements China’s rule on the city’s rights and freedom. These moves have not only drawn international condemnation, but have also raised questions about Hong Kong’s status as a global financial hub and dimmed hopes that the city will ever become a full-fledged democracy.

What is the status of Hong Kong? 

More on:

Hong Kong

China

Demonstrations and Protests

Political Movements

Democracy

Hong Kong is a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China that has, until recently, largely been free to manage its own affairs based on “one country, two systems,” a national unification policy developed by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s. The concept was intended to help integrate Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau with sovereign China while preserving their unique political and economic systems. After more than a century and a half of colonial rule, the British government returned Hong Kong in 1997. (Qing dynasty leaders ceded Hong Kong Island to the British Crown in 1842 after China’s defeat in the First Opium War, and Kowloon and the New Territories came under British rule shortly after.) Portugal returned Macau in 1999, and Taiwan remains independent.

The Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 dictated the terms under which Hong Kong was returned to China. The declaration and Hong Kong’s Basic Law, the city’s constitutional document that Beijing enacted in accord with the declaration, enshrined the city’s “capitalist system and way of life” and granted it “a high degree of autonomy,” including executive, legislative, and independent judicial powers for fifty years (until 2047).

Chinese Communist Party officials do not preside over Hong Kong as they do over mainland provinces and municipalities, but Beijing exerts decisive influence over the region’s political sphere, especially after the enactment of the National Security Law in 2020. Beijing also maintains the authority to interpret the Basic Law for Hong Kong, a power that it had rarely used until recently. All changes to political processes are supposed to be approved by not only the Hong Kong government, but also by China’s top legislative body, the National People’s Congress, or its Standing Committee.

More From Our Experts

Hong Kong is allowed to forge external relations in certain areas—including trade, communications, tourism, and culture—but Beijing maintains control over the region’s diplomacy and defense. Under the Basic Law, Hong Kongers are supposed to be guaranteed freedoms of the press, expression, assembly, and religion, as well as protections under international law, which include those guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). But in practice, Beijing has curtailed most of these rights.

Was Hong Kong ever a democracy?

Although colonial Hong Kong had certain freedoms, it was never rated a full democracy [PDF] by international standards. And today, China is a one-party state that is reluctant to allow Hong Kong to hold free and fair elections. Experts note the ambiguity on this issue. The Basic Law states that the government’s “ultimate aim” is to have Hong Kong’s leader elected by popular vote, but it does not give a deadline for this to occur.

More on:

Hong Kong

China

Demonstrations and Protests

Political Movements

Democracy

Since the handover, there have been no free votes by universal suffrage for the chief executive, who is the head of the Hong Kong government. The chief executive is instead chosen by an election committee composed of representatives from Hong Kong’s dominant professional sectors and business elite. Under the Basic Law, Hong Kong residents were previously allowed to vote for members of the legislature, known as the Legislative Council, or LegCo, as well as for members of their local district councils, which handle day-to-day community concerns.

But more recently, Beijing has curbed Hong Kong residents’ already-limited voting rights. It overhauled the electoral system in 2021 to make it easier for pro-Beijing candidates to be appointed as chief executive and as LegCo members. Beijing ruled that only “patriots” who “respect” the Chinese Communist Party can run in elections. Only one candidate was allowed to run in the 2022 chief executive election: John Lee, a hard-line former chief superintendent of the city’s police force. For the LegCo, prior to 2021, half of the body’s seventy members were elected by direct voting, while the rest were chosen by groups representing different industries and professions. Now, just twenty members are directly elected and seventy are chosen. In response to these changes, pro-democracy groups boycotted the 2021 LegCo elections, and all ninety seats went to pro-Beijing individuals.

In 2023, new election rules set by Chief Executive Lee reduced the number of directly elected representatives from 90 percent to 20 percent of the total council seats. The remaining seats must be appointed by the chief executive or indirectly appointed by an electoral college. Prior to the rule changes, the district council was one of the last systems in which voters had a direct, unrestricted voice in their elections. Due to broad dissatisfaction with the new restrictions, voter turnout for the 2023 district council elections plummeted to 27.5 percent of eligible voters, compared to 71 percent in the 2019 election. 

Unlike China, Hong Kong has numerous political parties. They have traditionally split between two factions: pan-democrats, who call for incremental democratic reforms, and pro-establishment groups, who are by and large pro-business supporters of Beijing. The latter have typically been more dominant in Hong Kong politics. Although only a small minority of Hong Kongers have favored outright independence from China, youth movements, mostly led by student protesters, have demanded a more democratic system. Students have formed several political groups, including more radical, anti-Beijing parties such as Youngspiration, Hong Kong Indigenous, and Demosisto. But the powers of these groups and pro-democracy parties have weakened significantly as Beijing has cracked down on political opposition, including via the national security law. Several parties have disbanded, and some members have been forbidden from running in elections or jailed.

How has Beijing eroded Hong Kong’s freedoms?

Beijing had been chipping away at Hong Kong’s freedoms since the handover, experts say. Over the years, its attempts to impose more control over the city have sparked mass protests, which have in turn led the Chinese government to crack down further. 

For instance, in 2003, the Hong Kong government proposed national security legislation that would have prohibited treason, secession, sedition, and subversion against the Chinese government, but popular protests defeated that effort. In 2012, it tried to amend Hong Kong schools’ curricula to foster Chinese national identity, which many residents dismissed as Chinese propaganda. And in 2014, Beijing proposed a framework for universal suffrage, allowing Hong Kongers to vote for the city’s chief executive, but only from a Beijing-approved short list of candidates. The proposal led to protesters organizing massive rallies, collectively known as the Umbrella Movement, to call for true democracy.

In the years following the 2014 protests, Beijing and the Hong Kong government stepped up efforts to rein in dissent, including by prosecuting protest leaders, expelling several new legislators, and increasing media censorship.

Close

In the summer of 2019, Hong Kong saw its largest protests ever. For months, people demonstrated against a Beijing-endorsed legislative proposal that would have allowed extraditions of accused criminals for trials in mainland China. Then Chief Executive Carrie Lam withdrew that bill in September, but the protests, which garnered international attention following reports of police brutality and excessive use of tear gas and rubber bullets, continued until the outbreak of COVID-19 in Hong Kong in early 2020.

What is the national security law Beijing imposed on Hong Kong?

Beijing took its most assertive action yet on June 30, 2020, when it bypassed the Hong Kong legislature and imposed a national security law [PDF]. The legislation effectively criminalizes any dissent and adopts extremely broad definitions for crimes such as terrorism, subversion, secession, and collusion with foreign powers. It also allows Beijing to establish a security force in Hong Kong and influence the selection of judges who hear national security cases. Pro-democracy activists and lawmakers expressed fears that it could be “the end of Hong Kong.” Meanwhile, Chinese officials and pro-Beijing lawmakers said it was necessary to restore stability following the massive protests.

In March 2024, Hong Kong lawmakers unanimously passed another sweeping security law aimed at plugging supposed loopholes in the 2020 law. Known as Article 23 [PDF], the bill was first proposed in 2002 but was met with a series of protests and failed to garner sufficient support. The current legislation broadens the scope and definition of political crimes, targets “external interference” and theft of state secrets, and prohibits foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in Hong Kong, among other provisions. Analyst say the new law could have even further chilling effects on a wide range of international businesses and professionals, including civil servants, diplomats, journalists, and academics.

Authorities have used the law to try to eliminate all forms of political opposition. They disqualified pro-democracy candidates from running in elections and removed elected lawmakers for publicly opposing China’s control over Hong Kong. As of July 2023, police had arrested at least 260 people under the law, many of them prominent pro-democracy activists, former lawmakers, and journalists. Thousands more people have been arrested for participating in the 2019 protests. Beijing and the Hong Kong government have also curbed media freedoms, with pro-democracy publications such as newspaper Apple Daily closing after journalists were harassed and jailed. Jimmy Lai, founder of Apple Daily and a high-profile pro-democracy advocate in Hong Kong, was detained by the police in 2020. He faces up to a lifetime in prison for myriad charges under the new national security law, including foreign collusion, as well as charges under preexisting colonial law, including sedition, fraud, and unauthorized assembly.

The crackdowns have begun to extend to foreigners working in Hong Kong. A Chinese Canadian scholar researching the consequences of the Chinese government’s 1989 massacre of protesters at Tiananmen Square was recently fired from her teaching position at a Hong Kong university after being denied a work visa. The government has even claimed jurisdiction over the activities of foreigners in their own countries. Moreover, the Hong Kong police have offered bounties for information on pro-democracy protesters and activists, many of whom have sought asylum abroad or are living outside of Hong Kong, and at least one of whom is a U.S. citizen. These moves have by and large ended mass public protests and silenced many Hong Kong residents who fought for democracy. Thousands of people, including prominent activists and students, have fled the city.

What has been the international response to Beijing’s actions?

Several countries have condemned Beijing’s moves and taken retaliatory measures. The United States has imposed sanctions on Chinese officials whom it alleged were undermining Hong Kong’s autonomy, restricted exports of defense equipment to Hong Kong, revoked Hong Kong’s special trade status, and warned U.S. companies of the “growing risks” [PDF] of doing business in Hong Kong. It also joined a handful of countries, including Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, that suspended their extradition treaties with Hong Kong because of the national security law. In August 2021, the Joe Biden administration deferred the deportations of the several thousand Hong Kong residents in the United States.

The United Kingdom (UK), which also ended its extradition agreement with the region, said it would allow three million Hong Kong residents to settle in the country and apply for citizenship. Canada announced measures to make it easier for Hong Kong youth to study and work, creating pathways for permanent residency. The European Union, which expressed “grave concern” about the national security law, limited exports of equipment that China could use for repression.

However, the opposition has not been unanimous. Fifty-three countries—most of which are participating in China’s Belt and Road Initiative—signed a statement read before the UN Human Rights Council in July 2020 supporting the national security law, while twenty-seven countries signed a statement criticizing it.

What does Beijing’s crackdown mean for Hong Kong’s financial status? 

Hong Kong is still a global financial hub, but Beijing’s actions have jeopardized its standing. Relatively low taxes, a highly developed financial system, light regulation, and other capitalist features had made Hong Kong one of the world’s most attractive markets and set it apart from mainland financial hubs such as Shanghai and Shenzhen. Multinational firms and banks—many of which maintain Asian regional headquarters in Hong Kong—have historically used the city as a gateway to do business in the mainland, owing in part to its proximity to the world’s second-largest economy and its reliable legal system based on British common law. 

“It seems that you really cannot maintain Hong Kong’s international financial standing while stifling its freedom.”
Victoria Tin-bor Hui, University of Notre Dame

However, executives of some companies with large footprints in Hong Kong have voiced concerns about the national security law, criticizing the broad powers given to mainland authorities. The Biden administration has cautioned that companies could violate the vague national security law without realizing it. “Beijing’s ideal scenario is to keep Hong Kong as a financial center without all the freedom. But it seems that you really cannot maintain Hong Kong’s international financial standing while stifling its freedom,” says Victoria Tin-bor Hui, a political science professor at the University of Notre Dame.

Some firms have left the city or are boosting hiring in other Asian financial capitals, such as Singapore and Tokyo, while Hong Kong stocks have taken a plunge since 2019, and the region’s initial public offering (IPO) market continues to decline. The number of American companies with regional bases in Hong Kong also fell to an eighteen-year low in 2021. Social media companies, in particular, have expressed unease about a part of the law that requires them to surrender requested user data to the Hong Kong government. Even TikTok, an app owned by mainland-based company ByteDance, suspended operations in the city.

Also to blame for the exodus were Hong Kong’s COVID-19 restrictions, which included a lengthy quarantine requirement and other strict measures imposed in an attempt to align with Beijing’s so-called zero-COVID policy. Authorities banned flights from several countries, including the United States and the UK, and restricted gatherings. These moves led many economists to lower predictions for the city’s growth and warn of brain drain. “Hong Kong is facing an exodus of educated workers on a scale not seen since the early 1990s,” said a Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce report released in 2022. 

Yet, some experts believe that Hong Kong can maintain its commercial status despite its democratic decline. In recent years, Beijing has moved to connect Hong Kong more to the mainland, creating the Greater Bay Area project, an ambitious plan to integrate Hong Kong and cities in neighboring Guangdong Province into a more cohesive economic region. Many firms and investors are betting that this increased connectivity will boost the amount of wealth flowing from the mainland into Hong Kong.

Recommended Resources

On The President’s Inbox podcast, the University of Notre Dame’s Victoria Tin-bor Hui explains the national security law imposed on Hong Kong.

The podcast Hong Kong Silenced tells the story of how life in Hong Kong was turned upside down in the year after the national security law was imposed.

The Congressional Research Service outlines the national security law for Hong Kong [PDF], Hong Kong’s preferential trade status [PDF], and the history of U.S.-Hong Kong relations [PDF].

The Wilson Center’s Mike Davis details the constitutional journey that led to the passing of the 2020 National Security Law in his book, Making Hong Kong.

CFR’s Jerome Cohen outlines the new criminal justice legal landscape under the National Security Law in his article published in the Academia Sinica Law Journal.

During this 2023 roundtable, CFR’s Jerome A. Cohen and Doughty Street Chambers Barrister Caoilfhionn Gallagher discuss the broad reaching consequences of the trial of Jimmy Lai.

Eleanor Albert contributed to this Backgrounder. Will Merrow created the map.

For media inquiries on this topic, please reach out to [email protected].
Close

Top Stories on CFR

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Sign up to receive CFR President Mike Froman’s analysis on the most important foreign policy story of the week, delivered to your inbox every Friday afternoon. Subscribe to The World This Week. In the Middle East, Israel and Iran are engaged in what could be the most consequential conflict in the region since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. CFR’s experts continue to cover all aspects of the evolving conflict on CFR.org. While the situation evolves, including the potential for direct U.S. involvement, it is worth touching on another recent development in the region which could have far-reaching consequences: the diffusion of cutting-edge U.S. artificial intelligence (AI) technology to leading Gulf powers. The defining feature of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy is his willingness to question and, in many cases, reject the prevailing consensus on matters ranging from European security to trade. His approach to AI policy is no exception. Less than six months into his second term, Trump is set to fundamentally rewrite the United States’ international AI strategy in ways that could influence the balance of global power for decades to come. In February, at the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris, Vice President JD Vance delivered a rousing speech at the Grand Palais, and made it clear that the Trump administration planned to abandon the Biden administration’s safety-centric approach to AI governance in favor of a laissez-faire regulatory regime. “The AI future is not going to be won by hand-wringing about safety,” Vance said. “It will be won by building—from reliable power plants to the manufacturing facilities that can produce the chips of the future.” And as Trump’s AI czar David Sacks put it, “Washington wants to control things, the bureaucracy wants to control things. That’s not a winning formula for technology development. We’ve got to let the private sector cook.” The accelerationist thrust of Vance and Sacks’s remarks is manifesting on a global scale. Last month, during Trump’s tour of the Middle East, the United States announced a series of deals to permit the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia to import huge quantities (potentially over one million units) of advanced AI chips to be housed in massive new data centers that will serve U.S. and Gulf AI firms that are training and operating cutting-edge models. These imports were made possible by the Trump administration’s decision to scrap a Biden administration executive order that capped chip exports to geopolitical swing states in the Gulf and beyond, and which represents the most significant proliferation of AI capabilities outside the United States and China to date. The recipe for building and operating cutting-edge AI models has a few key raw ingredients: training data, algorithms (the governing logic of AI models like ChatGPT), advanced chips like Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) or Tensor Processing Units (TPUs)—and massive, power-hungry data centers filled with advanced chips.  Today, the United States maintains a monopoly of only one of these inputs: advanced semiconductors, and more specifically, the design of advanced semiconductors—a field in which U.S. tech giants like Nvidia and AMD, remain far ahead of their global competitors. To weaponize this chokepoint, the first Trump administration and the Biden administration placed a series of ever-stricter export controls on the sale of advanced U.S.-designed AI chips to countries of concern, including China.  The semiconductor export control regime culminated in the final days of the Biden administration with the rollout of the Framework for Artificial Intelligence Diffusion, more commonly known as the AI diffusion rule—a comprehensive global framework for limiting the proliferation of advanced semiconductors. The rule sorted the world into three camps. Tier 1 countries, including core U.S. allies such as Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom, were exempt from restrictions, whereas tier 3 countries, such as Russia, China, and Iran, were subject to the extremely stringent controls. The core controversy of the diffusion rule stemmed from the tier 2 bucket, which included some 150 countries including India, Mexico, Israel, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Many tier 2 states, particularly Gulf powers with deep economic and military ties to the United States, were furious.  The rule wasn’t just a matter of how many chips could be imported and by whom. It refashioned how the United States could steer the distribution of computing resources, including the regulation and real-time monitoring of their deployment abroad and the terms by which the technologies can be shared with third parties. Proponents of the restrictions pointed to the need to limit geopolitical swing states’ access to leading AI capabilities and to prevent Chinese, Russian, and other adversarial actors from accessing powerful AI chips by contracting cloud service providers in these swing states.  However, critics of the rule, including leading AI model developers and cloud service providers, claimed that the constraints would stifle U.S. innovation and incentivize tier 2 countries to adopt Chinese AI infrastructure. Moreover, critics argued that with domestic capital expenditures on AI development and infrastructure running into the hundreds of billions of dollars in 2025 alone, fresh capital and scale-up opportunities in the Gulf and beyond represented the most viable option for expanding the U.S. AI ecosystem. This hypothesis is about to be tested in real time. In May, the Trump administration killed the diffusion rule, days before it would have been set into motion, in part to facilitate the export of these cutting-edge chips abroad to the Gulf powers. This represents a fundamental pivot for AI policy, but potentially also in the logic of U.S. grand strategy vis-à-vis China. The most recent era of great power competition, the Cold War, was fundamentally bipolar and the United States leaned heavily on the principle of non-proliferation, particularly in the nuclear domain, to limit the possibility of new entrants. We are now playing by a new set of rules where the diffusion of U.S. technology—and an effort to box out Chinese technology—is of paramount importance. Perhaps maintaining and expanding the United States’ global market share in key AI chokepoint technologies will deny China the scale it needs to outcompete the United States—but it also introduces the risk of U.S. chips falling into the wrong hands via transhipment, smuggling, and other means, or being co-opted by authoritarian regimes for malign purposes.  Such risks are not illusory: there is already ample evidence of Chinese firms using shell entities to access leading-edge U.S. chips through cloud service providers in Southeast Asia. And Chinese firms, including Huawei, were important vendors for leading Gulf AI firms, including the UAE’s G-42, until the U.S. government forced the firm to divest its Chinese hardware as a condition for receiving a strategic investment from Microsoft in 2024. In the United States, the ability to build new data centers is severely constrained by complex permitting processes and limited capacity to bring new power to the grid. What the Gulf countries lack in terms of semiconductor prowess and AI talent, they make up for with abundant capital, energy, and accommodating regulations. The Gulf countries are well-positioned for massive AI infrastructure buildouts. The question is simply, using whose technology—American or Chinese—and on what terms? In Saudi Arabia and the UAE, it will be American technology for now. The question remains whether the diffusion of the most powerful dual-use technologies of our day will bind foreign users to the United States and what impact it will have on the global balance of power.  We welcome your feedback on this column. Let me know what foreign policy issues you’d like me to address next by replying to [email protected].

Iran

As Trump weighs whether to join Israel's bombing campaign of Iran, some have questioned if the president has the authority to involve the U.S. military in this conflict.

RealEcon

The Global Fragility Act (GFA) serves as a blueprint for smart U.S. funding to prevent and end conflict, and bipartisan congressional leaders advocate reauthorization of the 2019 law.