Hong Kong City.
“Unwavering support” and waning freedoms
On October 1, 2019 – National Day in China – Hong Kong didn’t catch China’s celebratory mood. There were fireworks and guns fired, but these weren’t celebratory fireworks or a gun salute. These fireworks were ones lit by protestors; this gun was used not in salute but in police retaliation against an eighteen-year-old protester. It was another escalation of nearly four months of massive anti-government protests, what those involved refer to as “the last fight for Hong Kong.”
When the British officially returned Hong Kong to Chinese control in 1997 after 156 years of British rule, Chris Patten, the last governor of Hong Kong, declared, “Now Hong Kong people are to run Hong Kong. That is the promise, and that is the unshakable destiny.” Prince Charles also vowed at the time that, “the United Kingdom will maintain its unwavering support for the Joint Declaration,” referring to the 1984 agreement of “one country, two systems” that guaranteed Hong Kong would retain its way of life and institutions for 50 years after the handover.
Within moments of the transfer, though, the British stood by as the elected Legislative Council of Hong Kong was dissolved and replaced with a Provisional Legislature of Beijing-chosen appointees. It was, as Hong Kong and the rest of the world would soon see, an omen of things to come.
Reconciling Duty and Action
In early June, when millions of Hong Kong residents started the present movement by marching against a bill that would allow criminal suspects (and possibly dissidents) to be tried in mainland China’s judicial system, Lord Patten wrote an op-ed titled, “Britain has a duty to help Hong Kong out of this dark moment.” In it, he argues that governments must take a stand on the events in Hong Kong. Britain, he asserts, has an even greater duty because it “has a debt of honor to Hong Kong” as its former ruler. Patten’s remarks are fitting, because his call for international powers to defend Hong Kong comes at the same time protesters are calling on Britain and the United States for help. Which begs the question: What role should Britain play in pressuring China? What can Britain do?
Britain is in a unique position as Hong Kong’s former possessor. At the very least, Britain must show a basic level of support for the protesters and the freedoms for which they are fighting. As the country who sought to ensure those freedoms were protected in the first place, Britain would appear to have shortchanged their pledge of “unwavering support” if they didn’t. Indeed, the British government seems to have recognized this fact. In July, now-former Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt used that very same word – ”unwavering” – to describe the UK’s support for Hong Kong. He voiced support for an independent investigation of Hong Kong police and blocked exports of crowd control equipment to them (the new Foreign Minister has not done the latter). He warned of “serious consequences” if China continues its behavior toward Hong Kong and did not rule out sanctions or the expulsion of Chinese diplomats.
Recently, the issue has taken a backseat in British minds as the United Kingdom deals with the Brexit crisis. The government has issued strong words, but whether they would be willing to actually do anything is another matter. The options are few for Britain, and the question now is how far they should go.
Limited Options
One option is to enact sanctions, as Hunt suggested. China’s economy is already struggling, and perhaps exerting economic pressure will push China to lay off of Hong Kong. Whether this would work is far from certain, though, and there will certainly be costs to Britain. While the United Kingdom is a semi-important trade partner for China (10th in exports, 20th in imports), China is Britain’s 5th largest trading partner overall and 2nd (behind the US) of non-EU countries. In the potential economic turmoil of Brexit, hurting economic relations with a major trade partner who might soon become even more important could be too much to bear.
The second option Hunt discussed – expelling diplomats – would definitely send a strong message, but its effects are even less certain than sanctions. Doing so would certainly anger China – how strongly they would react is unclear – and expulsions are generally more symbolic than concretely consequential. Another more feasible option is to change the status of BN(O) passport holders. BN(O) – British National Overseas – passports allow holders to stay in the UK for 6 months, but they do not guarantee full citizenship or the “automatic right to live and work” in the United Kingdom. They were issued to 3.4 million Hong Kong residents in the waning days of British control, although only 170,000 are currently valid. Some have proposed providing passport holders with full citizenship. Others, with an eye toward those in Britain who might disapprove of Hong Kong immigration, propose a temporary visa with a path to citizenship. So far, China has refrained from much comment on the matter, and, despite some support within the British government, the United Kingdom has no current plans to amend the BN(O) status.
A Path Forward
In the end, Britain faces a complicated dilemma, one that includes both political and moral considerations. On the one hand, as with nearly all their former colonies, Britain left Hong Kong in a difficult and complex situation. In its imperial quest, Britain swept up Hong Kong and brought its people under the British flag. But their lease was only temporary. When it expired, despite Britain’s best efforts to retain sovereignty, they were left with no other option but to relinquish Hong Kong to the Chinese. In this way, the Hong Kong people, by no choice of their own, were left to the machinations of two world powers. And when the British left Hong Kongers without say in the handover negotiations, the government in effect took full responsibility for the future of Hong Kong. Perhaps recognizing this, Britain pledged to fight for the best interests of the Hong Kongers, to preserve their civil liberties and ensure the safety of their democratic institutions. And Britain must fulfill that pledge, a pledge undertaken for the people of Hong Kong and on which their fate depends.
On the other hand, Britain is also responsible for its own citizens and their well-being. A fight with China, an economic powerhouse on which the British will rely more than ever in the nebulous Brexit situation, could certainly have significant negative economic effects. The British government must be wary of this reality in their dealings with Hong Kong.
With these two considerations in mind, Britain should take two actions. First, they should work to give Hong Kongers at least some pathway to British citizenship. Of course, this would not actually solve the problem at hand, and it goes beyond simply enforcing the Joint Declaration. But at least it would provide a way out for some Hong Kongers who see less and less of the Hong Kong they once knew. Second, they should work to build a global coalition aimed at putting pressure on China. Britain does not have the wherewithal to force China’s hand by itself. Such an effort would likely be self-injurious and fruitless. However, Britain can work together to ally the economic and international sway of more powerful allies, like the United States, whom Hong Kongers are also lobbying. Forming international cooperation is difficult, and results are certainly not guaranteed. But such a collective effort has a much greater chance of successfully persuading China to adopt a more restrained position toward Hong Kong.
Britain certainly is responsible first and foremost to its own citizens, who are facing plenty of issues that deserve the government’s full attention. Yet Britain was, not so long ago, responsible for the people of Hong Kong. What is more, they bear at least some responsibility for Hong Kong’s current situation. Britain must act within reason, but they must also take steps to fulfill their responsibility to the people of Hong Kong. Anything else would be a breach of duty and trust.
Flickr/sideguacamole