自決在香港是個(gè)“偽命題”

Self-Determination in Hong Kong Is a Non-Issue

駐香港公署特派員 ?宋哲

Song Zhe, Commissioner of the Chinese Foreign Ministry in Hong Kong

近來(lái)，“自決”這個(gè)話題在香港很熱，身邊一些朋友也來(lái)問(wèn)我的意見(jiàn)。作為外交官，我想從國(guó)際關(guān)系和外交的角度講講“自決”的來(lái)龍去脈及在香港談“自決”的誤導(dǎo)性和迷惑性。

Some people in Hong Kong lately have been advocating for, or talking about, “self-determination.” In my view, from the perspective of international relations and diplomacy, their argument is confused and misleading.

“自決”是個(gè)有特定涵義的國(guó)際法語(yǔ)匯。從其產(chǎn)生到應(yīng)用的歷史看，都涉及到國(guó)際關(guān)系的理論和實(shí)踐。從時(shí)間段上看，可以簡(jiǎn)單分為二戰(zhàn)前、二戰(zhàn)后和冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束后幾個(gè)階段。“自決”的精神可追溯到美國(guó)“獨(dú)立宣言”；在20世紀(jì)初，列寧寫(xiě)過(guò)一本《論民族自決權(quán)》；第一次世界大戰(zhàn)后，美國(guó)總統(tǒng)威爾遜在其“十四點(diǎn)和平原則”中提及“民族自決權(quán)”。因此，從起源看，“自決”指的就是“民族自決”。

In international law, the term “self-determination” carries special meaning. Its inception and use concerned, in theory, “national self-determination,” and can be traced back from the U.S. Declaration of Independence in 1776 to Vladimir Lenin’s “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination” in 1914 and U.S. President Woodrow Wilson’s proposed rights of oppressed nations in his Fourteen Points following World War I.

二戰(zhàn)后，《聯(lián)合國(guó)憲章》、聯(lián)合國(guó)大會(huì)《給予殖民地國(guó)家和人民獨(dú)立宣言》、1966年“人權(quán)兩公約”等一系列國(guó)際法律文件確認(rèn)了“自決權(quán)”，一批亞洲、非洲等地的殖民地國(guó)家獲得了獨(dú)立。因此，從實(shí)踐看，“自決”就是殖民地人民爭(zhēng)取獨(dú)立的權(quán)利。同時(shí)，聯(lián)合國(guó)大會(huì)也明確表示，“任何旨在部分或全部分裂國(guó)家團(tuán)結(jié)和破壞其領(lǐng)土完整的企圖都與聯(lián)合國(guó)憲章原則相違背”，對(duì)自決權(quán)加以限制。

After World War II, a series of international legal documents reaffirmed the “right to self-determination.” These include the Charter of the United Nations and subsequently the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, as well as two international covenants on human rights. Thanks in part to these principles, a group of colonial countries in Asia and Africa were able to achieve independence.

In practice, “self-determination” refers to the rights of people in colonial countries seeking independence. But the U.N. General Assembly also set clear restrictions on this right, declaring that “any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”

冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束前后，“自決”概念出現(xiàn)濫用和擴(kuò)大化跡象，與“分離”混同起來(lái)。一些國(guó)家的地區(qū)以“自決”為借口提出“分離”要求，但這些所謂“自決”要求不具備國(guó)際法基礎(chǔ)，不被本國(guó)大多數(shù)人民支持，也未得到國(guó)際社會(huì)廣泛認(rèn)可。聯(lián)合國(guó)前秘書(shū)長(zhǎng)吳丹曾表示，聯(lián)合國(guó)“不會(huì)接受所謂會(huì)員國(guó)特定區(qū)域有權(quán)從母國(guó)分離的原則”。

After the Cold War, “self-determination” was increasingly abused and confused with the concept of “secession.” Certain regions within some countries asked for secession in the name of “self-determination.” Yet such requests have no legal basis in international law. They neither received the support of the majority of people in the countries concerned nor were widely recognized by the international community.

無(wú)論意味著“獨(dú)立”還是“分離”，“自決”都與香港隔著十萬(wàn)八千里遠(yuǎn)。從歷史講，香港在鴉片戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)前一直在中央政府連續(xù)有效管轄之下。從法理講，1997年7月1日中央政府恢復(fù)對(duì)香港行使主權(quán)，國(guó)家憲法和基本法明確規(guī)定了香港是國(guó)家不可分離的一部分。從文化講，香港與內(nèi)地同宗同源、血脈相連，同屬“中華文化”。既然從來(lái)沒(méi)有什么“香港民族”，香港也非外國(guó)統(tǒng)治下的殖民地，根本就不存在什么“自決”問(wèn)題。

Regardless of whether it means “independence” or “secession,” “self-determination” is completely irrelevant to Hong Kong. In historical terms, Hong Kong was under the effective jurisdiction of the Chinese central government, without interruption, before the Opium War. In legal terms, Beijing resumed sovereignty over Hong Kong on July 1, 1997, and it is clearly stated in China’s Constitution and Hong Kong’s Basic Law that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China.

In cultural terms, the people of Hong Kong and the mainland share the same origin. Bound by blood ties, they both belong to the Chinese culture. Since there has never existed a Hong Kong nation, and Hong Kong is not a colony under foreign rule, there is no issue of “self-determination” in Hong Kong.

此外，還有兩個(gè)迷惑性的錯(cuò)誤概念與“自決”相關(guān)。一是“后2047問(wèn)題”，另一個(gè)是“民主自決”問(wèn)題。

Two other topics relating to “self-determination” have also caused confusion. One concerns the “post-2047 arrangements,” and the other is “democratic self-determination.”

“一國(guó)兩制”五十年不變，指的是香港的資本主義制度和生活方式五十年不變，“一國(guó)”則是永遠(yuǎn)不變。“后2047前途”應(yīng)是香港在“一國(guó)”前提下實(shí)行什么樣的政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會(huì)制度問(wèn)題。這屬于中央授權(quán)的高度自治范疇，根本不存在“民主自決”問(wèn)題。

According to the Basic Law, the “one country, two systems” principle will remain unchanged for the 50 years following 1997. This means that Hong Kong’s lifestyle and capitalist system is to remain in place for a set period. Yet the “one country” aspect is to remain for good.

What needs to be discussed regarding the “post-2047 arrangements” is the kind of political, economic and social system that will be adopted in Hong Kong under the prerequisite of “one country.” This falls into the purview of a high degree of autonomy mandated by Beijing, not “democratic self-determination” as has been claimed by some.

在英國(guó)殖民統(tǒng)治的一百多年里，香港同胞從未享有過(guò)當(dāng)家作主的權(quán)利。香港回歸祖國(guó)后，在“一國(guó)兩制”政策安排下，香港同胞才能真正當(dāng)家作主，實(shí)現(xiàn)“港人治港”、高度自治。這種高度自治，是很多聯(lián)邦制國(guó)家內(nèi)的聯(lián)邦主體都不享有的。如香港享有獨(dú)立的司法終審權(quán)，中央政府不在香港征稅；而美國(guó)的州既無(wú)司法終審權(quán)，也要向聯(lián)邦政府繳稅。

During Hong Kong’s 150 years under British rule, its people never exercised rights as masters of the city. It was only after the return of Hong Kong to the motherland in 1997 under the “one country, two systems” principle that Hong Kong began to be administered by its residents with a high degree of autonomy.

Such autonomy is unique and not practiced by subnational units within many federal countries. For example, Hong Kong enjoys the power of final adjudication and pays no taxes to the central government. Even in the U.S., no state is entitled to such a privilege.

在這種情況下，如果有人還在香港大談“自決”，只有兩種可能：或是對(duì)“自決”有模糊或錯(cuò)誤認(rèn)識(shí)；或是別有用心，故意偷換概念，混水摸魚(yú)。

如果是前者，希望本文能夠幫助其澄清認(rèn)識(shí)；如果是后者，只會(huì)將香港引向極其危險(xiǎn)的未來(lái)，損害國(guó)家和香港的根本利益，這是注定要失敗的。

If someone continues to advocate “self-determination” in Hong Kong, he or she might not have a correct understanding of the term. To them, I hope this article will help clarify the concept.

But there are also others who are deliberately confusing this concept as a way to stir up trouble. I am afraid that such an attempt will lead Hong Kong onto a dangerous path and undermine the fundamental interests of the country and Hong Kong.

對(duì)香港而言，當(dāng)前最緊迫的任務(wù)是集中精力發(fā)展經(jīng)濟(jì)、改善民生，并充分發(fā)揮自身優(yōu)勢(shì)，找好“國(guó)家所需、香港所長(zhǎng)”的結(jié)合點(diǎn)，在與國(guó)家共同發(fā)展中迎來(lái)新機(jī)遇，而不是炒作一些似是而非、有害無(wú)益的錯(cuò)誤概念。

For Hong Kong, the most pressing task is to remain focused on improving its economy and livelihood, bringing into full play its advantages. It is our hope that Hong Kong will embrace new opportunities while developing together with the rest of the country. To play up certain erroneous ideas is in no one’s interest.