중국이 Hong Kong 주민들의 민주주의와 Freedom을 억누르는것은 본토내에서 인권운동하는 동지들의 피신처로서의 존재가 위협당한다는 뜻인데, 이대로라면 홍콩의 입지는 계속좁아지고, 경제활동의 Hub로서 그기능도 서서히 쇠퇴시킬것으로 예측하는것은 어렵지 않다.
내가 걱정하는것은, 한국의 문재인정부와 민주당 찌라시의원들이 중국의 "국가안전보호법"의 인민전당대회 통과를 눈여겨 보면서, 그법을 어떻게 홍콩주민들에 적용하여, 홍콩주민들의 일상생활에서 Freedom 과 민주주의를 말살시키고 사회주의로 회귀시켜, 주민들을 고삐에 끼워 맘데로 끌고다니면서 통솔할수있는가를 눈여겨 볼것이라는 점이다.
문재인정부는 이번 4.15부정선거를 하면서, 일차적으로 국민들의 Reaction을 이미 간파 했기에, 홍콩의 추이를 살피면서, 더치밀하게 자유를 큰저항없이, 박탈시키면서 그들이 원하고져하는 사회주의로 자연스럽게 회귀할수있는가를, Populism이라는 떡밥을 던져주면서 서서히 남아있는 2년동안에 성취할것으로 보여, 국민들이 그들의 사탕발림정책에 넘어가사는 안된다는 뜻이다.
"안전요구, 시민사회의 환경조성합법화"를 위한 국제 콘벤션회의에서, 홍콩에 본부를 둔 '중국내 인권투쟁'구룹의 통신책임자, Mi Ling Tsui는 설명하기를, "홍콩의 NGO활동을 돕기위한 외국의 지원과 권리주장을 놓고 중국정부가 내정간섭이라고 주장을 하는데, 그렇다면 중국내의 중국인이 주인인 기업들에 외국자본이 투자되는것은 어떻게 설명할것인가?"라고 오히려 반문한다.
만약에 베이징당국이 홍콩의 시민사회에 더 엄격한 통제를 하겠다고 한다면, 그것은 홍콩사회를 완전히 바꾸어 놓는 양상이 될수 있다는 것이다.
그렇게 홍콩사회를 변화시키기위해, "중국당국의 레이다의 감시속에서 활동하면서, 중국내 그들의 카운터파트들로 부터 방법을 배운 여러구룹들은, 정부를 비난하는 행동을 중지하게 될것이고 또 다른 구룹들은 이동배치를 당하게 될것이다"라고 인권감시구룹의 Mr. Adams씨는 한탄이다.
중국이 사회안전법을 홍콩에 적용시켜 통치하게 될것이라는 음모가 서서히 나타나면서 자선단체, 또는 시내의 인권옹호구룹들에 대해, 중국이 외국의 지원을 받는 조직들의 활동이, 국내문제에 간섭하거나 또는 "파괴행위, 또 전복행위"를 목적으로 한 행동으로 몰아부치면서, 이를 저지하기위한 준비를 하고있다는 소문이 퍼지면서 많은 염려를 떨쳐버리지 못하고있다. 지난 수십년간 홍콩은, 중국내에서 안전한 시민사화와 살기안전한 사회를 만들기위해 활동하거나, 본토에서 사회정의쟁취, 노동의 자유와 민주주의사회를 이룩하기위해 활약하다 중국을 탈출하여 홍콩으로 피난온 인권운동가들에게는 유일한 피난처 였었다.
새로운 입법이 발표되지도 않았는데, 홍콩정부의 법무부는 월요일 경고하기를, "사회안전법의 알려지지않은 입법내용에 대해 적절치 않은 추측을 퍼뜨리는 사람들의 적절치 않은 행동은 삼가해달라"는 경고를 했다.
일요일 중국외무장관 Wang Yi는 설명하기를, 중국정부는 국내안보를 심하게 해치는 반국가적 행동을 한 사람들을 타켓으로 정해서 색출할것이며, 홍콩주민들 또는 합법적이고 홍콩내에 외국인 투자자들의 관심사항에 관련된 권리와 자유로운 행동에는 전연 영향을 주지 않을 것이라는 단서를 달았었다.
그러나 지금까지 중국공산당정부의 인권유린과 Freedom 악용에 대해 잘알고있는 홍콩주민들과 외국인 투자자들에게 그말이 쉽게 먹혀 들어갈까?
"홍콩은 중국에서 인권활동을 했던 구룹들에게는 유일한 피난처였었다. 새로 입법하는 법에서는 그러한 피난처의 기능을 삭제하는 내용으로 되여있다"라고 인권옹호감시단의 회장 Brad Adam씨는 설명한다.
중국의 인민전당대회, 즉 거수기역활을 하는 의회가 발표한 입법초안에 의하면, "어떤 형태로든 홍콩의 특별자치행정부의 통치에 어떤 외부세력이나 외국인들의 활동에 완전히 반대한다"라고, 중국법의 영문번역본에 명시되여있다. 또한 "외국인 또는 외부세력이 홍콩자치구의 분리, 전복 또는 파괴행위들을 실행하는 행위에 대해서는 이를 저지하거나 벌칙을 받게된다"라고 확실하게 명시하고 있다.
위에서도 언급했지만, 제발 한국의 문재인 정부는 이러한 탄압을 목적으로 한 입법을 도입하려 하지말고, 좀더 자유로운 대한민국으로 건설하기위해, 양심적 정책만을 펴기를 바란다만은, 며칠전 문재인 대통령이 헌법개정을 언급한 뉴스를 봤었기에 더 걱정이 커지는것이다. 그렇게 할수없다면, 양심선언하고, 청와대 생활을 청산하고 경산의 큰집으로 낙향하시기를 기원해본다.
Beijing’s looming imposition of a
security law on Hong Kong has spread fear through charities and advocacy
groups in the city, as China prepares to go after foreign-backed
organizations deemed to interfere in local affairs or carry out
“destructive” or “subversive” activities.
For
decades, Hong Kong was a haven for civil society, a safe place for
activists who had fled China and an operational base on the fringe of
the mainland for groups pursuing social justice, labour rights and
democracy.
Now those groups are
contemplating whether they can continue to exist as China prepares a
national security law for Hong Kong that will take aim at what Beijing
deems “foreign interference.” It’s a charge mainland authorities already
routinely level against advocacy groups in the city.
“Hong
Kong has been a refuge to Chinese activists and civil society groups.
And the law would likely eliminate that refuge,” said Brad Adams,
executive director of Human Rights Watch’s Asia division.
A
draft order released by China’s National People’s Congress, the
country’s rubber-stamp parliament, says the new law should oppose “any
foreign or overseas forces interfering in the affairs of the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region in any fashion,” according to an English
rendering by China Law Translate. The draft also pledges to “stop and
punish foreign and overseas forces’ use of Hong Kong to carry out
separatist, subversive, infiltrative, or destructive activities.“
The
law itself has yet to be made public, and the Hong Kong Department of
Justice said Monday that “it is inappropriate for anyone to make
unwarranted speculations on the content of the legislation.” On Sunday,
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said Beijing will target ”a very narrow
category of acts that seriously jeopardize national security,” while
leaving unaffected “the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents or
the legitimate rights and interests of foreign investors in Hong Kong.”
But
the draft directive follows Beijing’s sustained attacks on some
non-governmental organizations operating in Hong Kong, particularly
those that focus on human rights.
In
December, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying singled out five
organizations for playing an “egregious role” in the violent protests
that swept Hong Kong last summer and fall. The National Endowment for
Democracy, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs,
the International Republican Institute, Human Rights Watch and Freedom
House “have supported anti-China plotters who messed up Hong Kong
through various means,” Ms. Hua alleged.
The
Hong Kong Police Force has also rebuked Amnesty International after it
documented police brutality toward protesters, including torture in
detention. In September, Chief Superintendent John Tse accused Amnesty
of distributing “malicious rumours” that “have affected the citizens’
confidence in the Hong Kong police.”
“The
potential impact of this national security legislation could be very
damaging to the work that we and others are doing,” said Joshua
Rosenzweig, who leads Amnesty International’s China team. For now, Hong
Kong remains a viable place for Amnesty to do its work, he said. But
“the tone of the language in the NPC decision is worrying and forces us –
along with many other organizations based in Hong Kong – to keep a
watchful eye,” he said.
But there is little cause for concern,
said Wang Zhenyao, founding dean of the China Global Philanthropy
Institute, which is dedicated to cultivating generosity in China. The
new security law will make Hong Kong’s NGOs “more healthy,” said Mr.
Wang, a former official in China’s Ministry of Civil Affairs. Most of
Hong Kong’s charitable organizations have nothing to fear – even those
that operate with money from overseas. “If we can see that the source of
the foreign funding has never been involved in activities that could
harm national interests,” then the flow of that money “won’t be affected
by this law at all,” Mr. Wang said.
Still, he suggested certain groups should not be considered NGOs.
“Groups
that involve themselves in politics – I don’t think they can be
regarded as NGOs or charitable groups at all.” After all, ”what country
would allow its people to destroy subway exits and burn everything up?”
Those
most at risk in Hong Kong are groups that operate with money from what
Christine Loh, the chief development strategist at the Hong Kong
University of Science and Technology, called a “politically connected
funder,” such as those backed by the U.S. State Department. “There may
also be other funding bodies where the funding of projects come from
state-sponsored sources,” said Prof. Loh, a former politician who has
operated a think tank in the city and has founded several non-profits.
A
national security law passed in 2009 by Macau, which holds similar
legal standing in China to Hong Kong, criminalizes links with foreign
political groups for donations or for “the collection, preparation or
public dissemination of false or grossly distorted news.” In China,
strict laws place NGOs under official control and have made it difficult
for groups to operate with foreign funding.
In
Hong Kong, further worry has arisen over a provision in the draft
security law order that says organs of the Chinese government “relevant
for the protection of national security are to set up institutions” in
the city. Such a security apparatus “could have very penetrating
investigative power,” said Albert Ho, a former legislator with Hong
Kong’s Democratic Party. “That itself is already very scary. It could
create a lot of intimidation and harassment on Hong Kong NGOs.”
The
fear is that “the scope of the new legislation could affect a very
broad spectrum of business, civil society and educational institutions
in Hong Kong,” said Geoffrey Crothall, the director of communications
for China Labour Bulletin, which is dedicated to workers’ rights in
China.
International human-rights
conventions “require a safe, enabling environment for civil society,”
said Mi Ling Tsui, the communications director for Human Rights in
China, a Hong Kong-based group. “If Beijing claims that foreign support
for Hong Kong NGOs and rights advocates is foreign interference, how
would it characterize foreign investments in Chinese-owned companies?”
But if Beijing does take a strict approach to civil society in Hong Kong, it could force major change.
To
adapt, some groups may “learn from their counterparts in China by
operating under the radar,” Mr. Adams of Human Rights Watch said. Some
may “stop being critical of the government. Others would relocate.”
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-chinas-crackdown-on-hong-kong-will-end-its-status-as-a-haven-for/
No comments:
Post a Comment