The British NGO “Hong Kong Watch,” which has always been concerned about the human rights situation in Hong Kong, recently published a
policy paper criticizing the Hong Kong Overseas Economic and Trade Offices (ETO) acting as a spokesperson for the CCP. In the paper, it asked governments of various countries to re-examine the status and privileges of the Hong Kong ETO and terminate the cooperation with them or close the ETO for good. In an interview with the Epoch Times, some scholars pointed out that the ETO has become the mouthpiece of the CCP, things like promoting the “Belt and Road” activities that have nothing to do with Hong Kong. In view of this, foreign governments should no longer grant similar diplomatic privileges.
According to the Basic Law, Hong Kong is treated as a separate entity from China when it comes to matters of customs and trade, and as such enjoys the status of an individual region on its own. That status allows Hong Kong to participate as an independent member in international organizations such as WTO, OECD, and the like.
Hong Kong Watch: ETO is Indirectly Controlled by the CCP
On Oct. 13, the British NGO, “Hong Kong Watch,” which has long been concerned about the human rights situation in Hong Kong, issued a report criticizing the overseas ETO deviating from its original founding principle, which is to promote Hong Kong’s image and economic and cultural exchanges through activities with the host country. But such promotion activities are becoming increasingly in line with the jargon adopted as the CCP’s description of Hong Kong. For example, concepts such as the “Greater Bay Area” are used to promote Hong Kong as the gateway to mainland China, replacing previous descriptions such as “one country, two systems” and “a high degree of autonomy.”Letter to ‘Remind’ UK Media That Sedition Law Applies to Them
According to past records, “Hong Kong Watch” criticized that as the Hong Kong government is increasingly under the direct political control of the CCP, that makes the ETO is also under the indirect control of the latter, making it a de facto CCP embassy. The ETO had indeed openly supported the “Hong Kong National Security Law (NSL)” and continued to suppress human rights and followed the CCP’s approach to promote economic and cultural exchanges. The report also said, given that the ETO’s name and reputation are different from those of a Chinese embassy, it is always able to work in a way different from the CCP and its embassies, if it so wishes.
