Hong Kong’s fear over the extradition law is neither unique nor new. Remember the Treaty of Wanghia

Hongkongers’ fight against a proposed law that would open the door to politically motivated exploitation should be understood in the wider context of history

The first China-US diplomatic treaty signed 175 years ago offers lessons on extraterritorial law enforcement and the Chinese imperative for sovereignty

4-MIN READ4-MIN

The US flag flies at the Port of Los Angeles on June 18. The US-China tussle over trade is nothing new. The 1844 Treaty of Wanghia was fundamentally about trade. Its primary accomplishment was to end China’s tariff autonomy, by fixing ad valorem import and export duties at 5 per cent, levelling the playing field in favour of American and British merchants. Photo: AFP

Eric Stryson

Eric Stryson is managing director of the Global Institute For Tomorrow.

Published: 2:30pm, 9 Jul 2019Updated: 8:44pm, 9 Jul 2019

Last week, amid the commemorations for the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on July 1, most of us in Hong Kong missed another significant but largely forgotten anniversary. Although 22 years seems now to be the limit to our historical remembrance, it was 175 years ago when China and America signed their first diplomatic treaty. History offers lessons for our turbulent times.

The Treaty of Wanghia, signed on July 3, 1844 at the Kun Iam temple in Macau, granted Americans the principle of extraterritoriality, which meant impunity from local Chinese laws. For crimes committed in the five special treaty ports, Americans would be tried not by Chinese law, but by an American consul.

Ironically, or not, the consul in Guangzhou at the time was also senior partner at the largest American opium-smuggling firm. Thus, law enforcement was lax and trade in illegal goods continued unabated. This special status lasted 100 years until 1943.

It was relinquished only when America’s leadership determined that an alliance with the new Republic of China was more important than preferential treatment, which was anyway criticised as an imperialist and even a racist double standard.