I was recently told that the Hong Kong Kennel Club is in some sort of limbo because of Hong Kong’s being a part of China. The timeline history of HKKC can be read at their website. It is quite an old KC that would later become an FCI member come 1972. Now if you remember your history, on 01 July 1997, the ceremony of handing back the sovereignty of HK back by England to China would be held and celebrated. AKU quickly addressed this issue in the same year and somehow decided to maintain the status quo based on the statement that “HK has a high degree of autonomy for their own affairs.” I’m sure this got endorsed to FCI (APac wasn’t formed yet) and considering that China had no FCI recognized NCO, they probably agreed to maintain the status quo.

While this was happening in HK, in nearby China, a burgeoning economy was taking off that would lead to the popularity of purebred dogs. So that by the early 2000s shows were being held left and right. 2 Kennel clubs came to being and would compete for canine world recognition. When the dust cleared in 2006, CKU would become an FCI member and by 2011 would be a voting member. Of course it would only take some time for the situation to affect HKKC.

Some have questioned why Hong Kong, and Taiwan are given voting privileges and that shouldn’t it just be one vote from China? I had a knee jerk reaction first time I heard this and quickly found this as racist. BUT then, you sit back and think, and begin to ask yourself are they right? Then you realize that technically the only vote should be that of China in relation to Hong Kong. To me, Hong Kong is the one that might lose it’s federate membership. Word has it that the status of Hong Kong will be tackled in the next General Assembly. Taiwan is a different matter all together, it fulfills all 7 criteria (http://geography.about.com/cs/politicalgeog/a/statenation.htm) that defines one as a country/State, even if it is not a UN member, and is a member of APEC.

So what’s my take on this? Personally, I believe, HKKC has a good chance of losing it’s federate membership. HK it is not a country in the eyes of the international community, and the FCI statutes states, specifically “Article 7 a) The FCI accepts only one nco per country.” Here we have one country-China (HK is not recognized as a country and is part of China) and two NCOs of which FCI has to recognize only one. Remember, England turned over sovereignty of HK to China in 1997. For purposes of order, FCI will have to chose one. I can’t think of a win win situation at the moment. HKKC will probably and should be allowed to exist in HK. CKU should let HKKC continue issuing pedigrees only to HK whelped dogs but with the CKU seal. A percentage of registration income should be remitted to CKU. They should be allowed to hold shows. The president of HKKC given a board seat in CKU. Unfortunately HKKC per se, cannot be an FCI member.

The question is should FCI decide on this matter? Of course they should for purposes of order. But this is where things get tricky and they have to be careful. The FCI resolution on this matter should be properly worded or else. They should be specific and give as a reason- “China can only have one nco.” They should not use the phrase “HKKC cannot be a member because HK is not a country.” This might start a discussion and will require the definition of “country,” the term “country” is not defined in the section “Definitions” in the Statutes. Understandably, it was never included because we all presume common sense. But if this is the reason/argument they will give, it will become a precedent, and it opens a  can of worms, because you just might be surprised of who else in FCI does not fulfill all 7 criteria that defines a country/State therefore isn’t considered a country in the same eyes of the same international community. I’m sure this will not be an issue, but with so much jockeying and politics going around, you really don’t want any loose ends that will result into a filibuster of wasteful discussion.