Edward Snowden: Why the NSA whistleblower fled to Hong Kong

The man who leaked the NSA secrets to The Guardian newspaper says Hong Kong is one of the few places that both could and would resist the dictates of the US government.

The Guardian/AP
This photo provided by The Guardian Newspaper in London shows Edward Snowden, who worked as a contract employee at the National Security Agency, on Sunday, June 9, 2013, in Hong Kong. The Guardian identified Snowden as a source for its reports on intelligence programs after he asked the newspaper to do so on Sunday.

Edward Snowden, the man who leaked NSA secrets to The Guardian newspaper, has chosen either luckily or on extremely good advice by seeking refuge in Hong Kong from possible prosecution.

A quirk of judicial history means Mr. Snowden could be safe from any US attempt to extradite him “for months if not years,” according to one of the former British colony’s top legal experts, Simon Young.

Though it is unlikely Snowden would be able to spend the rest of his life in Hong Kong, he will be able to use the protections afforded by Hong Kong’s judicial system, which is independent of the Chinese government.

If Snowden chooses to ask for political asylum, says Professor Young, head of the Centre for Comparative and Public Law at Hong Kong University, “he is going nowhere” in the foreseeable future. A recent appeals court ruling, he explains, means that “the government cannot return anyone who claims that he will be persecuted” in the country he came from.

That is because Hong Kong’s asylum law is “a black hole,” Young says. In the wake of the court ruling last March, the government cannot continue simply to follow rulings by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees on the merits of an asylum claimant’s case, as it has always done until now.

The Court of Final Appeal ruled that the government must independently determine the validity of asylum claims, but the authorities have devised no system for doing so. Legislation setting up such a system would take “months if not years,” says Young, and any administrative plan the government instituted before a law was passed would be subject to challenge in the courts.

“Short of a criminal group getting to him, I think he is safe here,” Young adds.

Snowden told The Guardian in an interview published Sunday that he had flown to Hong Kong on May 20, because “they have a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent.”

The Guardian also said he believed Hong Kong was “one of the few places in the world that both could and would resist the dictates of the US government.”

The United States and Hong Kong signed an extradition treaty in 1996, shortly before Hong Kong was returned to Chinese sovereignty. Article 6 provides that “a fugitive offender shall not be surrendered if the offence of which that person is accused or was convicted is an offence of a political character.”

If the US government does indict Snowden, and then asks the Hong Kong government to extradite him, the Chief Executive might refuse on the grounds of another clause in the treaty allowing him not to surrender a fugitive if doing so might implicate “the defense, foreign affairs or essential public interest or policy” of the Chinese government in Beijing.

 “Hong Kong will have to take instructions from Beijing on this,” predicts Michael Davis, a Politics professor at Hong Kong University. “And I cannot see how Beijing benefits from tweaking the US” by refusing an extradition request.

Should Beijing and the Hong Kong government agree to an extradition, however, it would be subject to judicial approval, and Snowden could decide to argue in court that he leaked information about NSA spying programs for political reasons, portraying any crime of which he might be accused as “an offence of a political character.”

Snowden might not win such a case in the end; nor would the courts necessarily grant him asylum, even when the relevant laws and regulations have been approved, because they might not regard prosecution in a US court as “persecution.”

But “one can take full advantage of Hong Kong’s legal system to challenge issues that may arise ... and that could take a long time,” predicts Young.

 “He has made a very wise decision” to go to Hong Kong, adds the lawyer. “But I would counsel him to get legal advice.” 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.