|
Hong Kong trade office’s contributions to ties with UK mustn’t be forgotten / 不可抹煞香港經濟貿易辦事處為促進中英關係作出的貢獻
文章
The recent incident in the United Kingdom, in which an office manager and two other people connected with the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office (ETO) in London were charged under the UK’s National Security Act of 2023, has cast an unusual pall of intrigue and mystery over the role of the ETO in London.
Hong Kong has 14 ETOs across North America, the United Kingdom, Europe, Japan, Southeast Asia and Australia. They were established in accordance with Article 156 of the Basic Law, which provides that “the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may, as necessary, establish official or semi-official economic and trade missions in foreign countries”. The history of Hong Kong’s overseas representations on trade and economic issues goes back a long time, well before becoming a special administrative region.
After the second world war, Hong Kong emerged as a powerhouse in textile and garment manufacturing. Following the communist takeover in 1949, textile manufacturers from mainland China brought capital, machinery and skills to Hong Kong, and soon became leading exporters of cotton yarn to Southeast Asia.
Hong Kong’s textile manufacturers diversified into weaving and the production of fabrics and garments. Hong Kong’s textile and garment industry became so successful that by the 1980s, it had become subject to “voluntary export restraints” imposed by Western importing countries. The voluntary export restraints were later transformed into quotas for the export of textile products to the developed countries.
The imposition of textile export quotas and other trade restraints forced Hong Kong officials to play an active role in defending Hong Kong’s trade and economic interests in Geneva and other capitals, arguing for the reduction of tariffs, quotas and subsidies in accordance with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, a treaty aimed at promoting free trade signed in 1947.
A batch of Hong Kong’s trade officials were posted to Geneva, Washington and Brussels, where they represented Hong Kong in multilateral and bilateral negotiations on a wide range of trade issues, including quotas for textile exports, tariffs and non-tariff barriers and rules of origin, as well as anti-dumping and intellectual property-related issues. They were attached to British missions, allowing Hong Kong officials to acquire much expertise in trade negotiations and valuable experience of working closely with Western officials.
In the run-up to the handover in 1997, Hong Kong made frantic efforts to unscramble its trade and economic units from British posts and re-establish them as separate ETOs, in accordance with an agreement reached with the Chinese authorities and enshrined in Article 156 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong. The opportunity was also taken to establish ETOs in countries which were important export markets or trade partners of Hong Kong, such as Canada, Japan, Australia and Singapore.
Several consuls general working in Hong Kong in the 1990s stood out for their support for maintaining Hong Kong as a vibrant and internationally-oriented city following the handover. Thanks to the support of then consul general Dr Jocelyn Chey, Australia enacted the Overseas Missions (Privileges and Immunities) Act in 1995, which granted appropriate levels of privileges and immunities to missions representing non-state parties. Hong Kong’s ETO in Sydney, Australia, was accorded an appropriate level of exemptions and privileges under the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office (Privileges and Immunities) Regulations in 1996.
Flush with fiscal surpluses, the government secured funding from the legislature to buy land or buildings to accommodate all ETOs. Negotiations were concluded with host countries to confer an appropriate level of privileges and immunities on all of Hong Kong’s ETOs.
The London ETO, established in 1946, is the oldest of Hong Kong’s overseas offices and has always been a special case. Because of Hong Kong’s constitutional relationship with the UK up till 1997, the London ETO even played an important role in coordinating bilateral visits and promoting cultural and academic exchanges. The office provided the equivalent of “consular” services to the large number of Hong Kong residents studying or working in the British Isles.
The amicable bilateral relationship unfortunately turned sour in recent years, after a small band of parliamentarians and activists in the UK lobbied their government to impose sanctions on Hong Kong and pressure jurists to step down from Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal.
The trial of former media mogul Jimmy Lai Chee-ying on national security charges and aggressive lobbying by his son and supporters outside Hong Kong have fuelled the anti-Hong Kong furore.
Beijing’s enactment of a national security law in June 2020 to quell the prolonged unrest in Hong Kong was framed as an “interference” and a “clampdown” on rights and freedoms. All such accusations were made even as the UK government was undertaking a sweeping overhaul of its national security laws to toughen action against perceived “hostile state threats”.
Hong Kong officials who visited the UK in recent years, including former secretary for justice Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah and Secretary for Financial and Treasury Services Christopher Hui Ching-yu, have been harassed during their visits. Cheng was even wounded. In these circumstances, it is not unreasonable for the London ETO to strengthen security protection and heighten monitoring of hostile activities targeting Hong Kong.
The sudden and supposedly unexplained death of Matthew Trickett, one of the trio charged by the British authorities, added a macabre twist to the alleged spying undertaken by the London ETO. No matter what happens, the decades-long contributions the London ETO has made to fostering a bilateral relationship between the UK and Hong Kong must not be written off lightly.
In moments like these, when truth can easily fall prey to rumours and emotions, it is all the more important to think long term and ensure cool heads prevail.
中譯本:不可抹煞香港經濟貿易辦事處為促進中英關係作出的貢獻
最近英國發生一宗事件,香港駐倫敦經濟貿易辦事處(ETO)一名行政經理及兩名相關人士被指控觸犯2023年通過的英國國家安全法而被起訴,為該貿易辦事處在倫敦的作用蒙上陰影和不尋常的色彩。
香港在北美、英國、歐洲、日本、東南亞和澳州等地設有14個經濟貿易辦事處。它們根據《基本法》第156條的規定設立,該條例規定「香港特別行政區可以根據實際需要在外國設立官方或半官方經濟貿易代表機構」。香港在貿易和經濟問題上的海外代表機構歷史可以追溯至久遠日子,早在香港成為特別行政區之前已經存在。
二戰結束後,香港成為紡織業和成衣製造業的龍頭。1949年中國被共產黨解放後,從大陸來的紡織廠商將資本、機器和技術帶到香港,很快發展成為向東南亞出口棉紗的主要出口商。
香港紡織廠家業務迅速擴大到紡織,生產布料及成衣。香港的紡織和成衣業非常蓬勃,到了1980年已經成為西方進口國自願限制出口的對象。自願限制出口後來轉變成為向發達國家出口紡織產品的配額制度。
施加紡織品出口配額和其他貿易限制措施,迫使香港官員主動在日內瓦和其他國家首都參與維護香港貿易和經濟利益,根據1947年簽署的《關稅及貿易總協定》(GATT)促進自由貿易的條約,要求降低關稅、配額和補貼。
其後部分香港貿易官員被派駐日內瓦、華盛頓和布魯塞爾,代表香港參與廣泛貿易問題的多邊及雙邊談判,包括紡織品出口配額、關稅和非關稅壁壘、產地規則、反傾銷和知識產權問題等。他們隸屬於英國使團,使香港官員在貿易談判中獲取豐富知識,並與西方官員密切合作獲致寶貴經驗。
1997年主權移交前夕,香港快速安排將貿易及經濟機構從英國使團中剝離成立單獨的經濟貿易辦事處,這符合中英協議,並體現在香港《基本法》第156條中。同時香港也在負重要出口市場或貿易夥伴的國家如加拿大、日本、澳州和新加坡設立了經濟貿易辦事處。
20世紀90年代,幾位在香港工作的總領事,非常支持香港在主權移交後保持活力及國際化環境。在當時澳州總領事Dr.Jocelyn Chey支持下,澳州在1995年通過《國際組織(特權及豁免權)條例》,給予非主權實體代表機構適當的特權和豁免。1996年,根據《香港經濟貿易辦事處(特權及豁免)規例》,香港在悉尼的經濟貿易辦事處獲得適當的豁免和特權待遇。
在財政有盈餘的條件下,政府從立法會獲得撥款購入土地或樓宇,作為所有經貿辦事處的辦公大樓。香港與相關國家均已達成協議,給予所有經濟貿易辦事處適當的特權和豁免。
1946年成立的倫敦經濟貿易辦事處,是香港在海外機構中歷史最長的特別例子。由於香港在1997年前與英國在憲制上有關系,倫敦辦事處曾在協調雙邊訪問和促進文化與學術交流等方面發揮重要作用。該處為大量留學或工作在英國的香港居民提供等同於「領事」的服務。
不幸的是,近年隨著英國一小撮議員和反華人士向其政府施壓,要求對香港實施制裁,並敦促法官從香港終審法院辭職,曾經良好的雙邊關係出現變數。
香港前傳媒大亨黎智英因違反國安法接受審判,其子及海外港人組織積極遊說,令反香港情緒日益高漲。
2020年6月,北京訂立香港國安法平息香港長期的社會動盪,但此舉卻遭到詬病為「干預」和「箝制」權利與自由。但指責北京之時,英國政府本身卻全面修改國安法例,以加強打擊「敵對國威脅」。
近年訪問英國的香港高官包括前律政司鄭若驊和財經事務及庫務局局長許正宇等均曾遭受騷擾。鄭若驊更因而受傷。在此背景下,倫敦經濟貿易辦事處加強保安及監察針對香港的敵對行動,實屬無可厚非。
被英國當局起訴三人之一Matthew Trickett突然和不明原因死亡,為倫敦經濟貿易辦事處「所謂從事間諜活動」添加了一段陰謀論情節。無論事態如何發展,倫敦經濟貿易辦事處數十年間為促進英國與香港之間的雙邊關係出的貢獻,絕對不容忽視。
此時此刻,真相很容易成為謠言和情緒的犧牲品。各方應該慎重思考,保持冷靜理性。只有通過理性對話,才可能化解誤會,促進雙方關係回到正軌。
|