The ICFTU/APRO mission in September raised the question of the future of trade unions in Hong Kong with the ACFTU, and the ACFTU responded that under the Basic Law (particularly under Article 148 “which emphasises the principle of mutual respect and non-interference”), the ACFTU had no jurisdiction over Hong Kong unions and no wish to interfere in their affairs. Present international affiliations to the ICFTU would not be affected.

This is the official position of the Chinese government and it is out of the question that the ACFTU could have stated a different position. Moreover, there are good reasons to assume that this position will hold, since the entire Hong Kong arrangement is under close surveillance of the international community and since the Chinese government has staked its credibility on the observance of the letter of the law.
But it is less reassuring than it would seem on the surface, not because of anything the Chinese government has done but because by suggesting acceptance for the ACFTU in the international trade union movement in its mission report, ICFTU-APRO has, in effect, created accomplished facts which have made the ICFTU a potential hostage to the ACFTU. From now on, it will be more difficult for the ICFTU to resist the ACFTU’s demands, and there is a wide margin within the formal observance of the Basic Law where this might create serious problems for Hong Kong trade unions.
Once the ACFTU has determined that the ICFTU has invested so much in their relationship with the ACFTU that it can no longer deny its demands, it is entirely conceivable that the Chinese government will feel free to move against what it perceives as its opposition, including within independent unions in Hong Kong.
The ACFTU has already told the ICFTU-APRO mission that it does not expect interference from the Hong Kong unions on the mainland (as a quid pro quo for non interference by the ACFTU in Hong Kong). This might preclude, for example, any attempt on the part of the HKCTU to give support to independent organising efforts in Shenzhen, right across the HKSAR border, where much of Hong Kong capital is invested in manufacturing operations. By the same token, American unions should be prohibited from assisting organising efforts in the maquiladoras across the border in Mexico. The same reasoning could, in fact, be applied to any expression of international solidarity anywhere, which can always be construed as “interference”.
Secondly, Han Dongfang who, we have been told by the ACFTU, represents no one, could be next in the firing line. Against the background of deepening relations with the ACFTU how far would the ICFTU capacity to defend his right to continue his radio program for Chinese workers or to publish the China Labour Bulletin be compromised?
Thirdly: Hong Kong is the home of a number of NGOs and political organisations specialising in the defence of labour rights and democratic rights, in Hong Kong and in China. They include organisations such as the Alliance in Support of the Patriotic Democratic Movement in China, Human Rights in China or Frontier, among others, as well as representations of foreign based or international organisations, such as Human Rights Watch/Asia, Amnesty International and others. They are important allies of the international trade union movement and provide valuable services in terms of research and information. That could be the very reason why the Chinese government, through the HKSAR administration, may want to curtail or suppress their activities if it believes that it can do so without paying a very high political price. Is the international trade union movement prepared to react immediately and strongly at the first sign that this may be happening? Even if the most obscure and marginal group is hit first? Is it prepared to go to war at the first slice of the salami, and make it unmistakably clear that this salami is not for slicing?
Fourthly, what if the FTU should decide to apply for ICFTU affiliation? Would ICFTU-APRO find anything wrong with such an affiliation? Would the ICFTU Executive Board, under strong pressure from the “China lobby”? Never mind that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Communist Party of China – we are not fighting the Cold War anymore, are we? The ICFTU affiliation of the HKCTU and the HKTUC would of course remain unaffected. They would simply become isolated, even within the ICFTU “family”. After all, isn’t the FTU the largest trade union organisation in Hong Kong?
The HKCTU, and anyone who cares about the integrity of the international trade union movement, have every reason to be concerned. The isolation process has already begun. Financial support for the HKCTU has been cut. The HKCTU has not been consulted by ICFTU-APRO on its mission to China, and was not invited to participate. Yet, in its absence and without previous consultation, the mission saw fit to discuss “the future of Hong Kong trade unions” with the ACFTU.