The Commons: How Much Will Britain Risk to Protect Hong Kong?

bgblue

On the heels of a pandemic, China has announced a new National Security Law for Hong Kong, making waves in the semi-autonomous region and globally. As a former British colony, the UK maintains a special bond with Hong Kong, prompting a quick and bold response that will serve to test the relationship between Britain and China.  

A Brief History of British Involvement in Hong Kong 

The history of British power in Hong Kong began in the early 1800’s, with British merchants docking opium-filled vessels in the harbor. The strategic importance of the island and its harbor, sitting perfectly along an East-West trade route, was not to be overlooked again. 

Indulging in the fallout of the first and second Opium Wars, Britain obtained control of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon Peninsula. Britain acquired the final piece of Hong Kong in 1898 under the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory, a 99-year lease of the “New Territories” from China to Britain. These early interactions of Great Britain and Imperial China cultivated a relationship founded upon dominance in which the Western power “exploited [China] for territory, influence, and trade concessions,” and advanced its colonial rule [1]. 

British Hong Kong industrialized rapidly after World War II, and by the late 1970’s, the city had begun to assert itself as leading regional and international financial center [2]. 

The early 1980’s saw negotiations on Hong Kong’s return between former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Deng Xiaoping, former leader of the People's Republic of China (PRC). These negotiations culminated in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Signed in 1984, the Declaration detailed the terms of the handover, outlining the now well-known “One Country, Two Systems” arrangement that provides HK with “its distinct political, socioeconomic, and legal arrangements under a unified China” [3].

Hong Kong was formally returned to China in 1997 in a ceremony that, for many, signified that the British empire had taken its last sunken breath. 

An independent Hong Kong? 

Hong Kong has been simmering with civil unrest since the handover. Residents of the semi-autonomous region fear that Beijing will overstep, breaching into the freedoms afforded to them by the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law – essentially, a constitution outlined by that declaration. 

Most recently, China has come under fire for approving a new Hong Kong National Security Law. Not yet fully drafted, people fear that the law would threaten the region’s distinct freedoms, those “of assembly and speech, an independent judiciary and some democratic rights - freedoms that no other part of mainland China has,” as the BBC's Grace Tsoi puts it. 

The timing is key to this PRC initiative. While the rest of the world struggles to manage the Coronavirus pandemic, China has been largely successful at containing the virus and is now gearing up to lead the global economy into recovery. Beyond recent developments, China’s relationship with Hong Kong has shifted over the course of the last 20 years. Hong Kong was once everything mainland China couldn’t be, but needed. Capitalist and pro-democracy, the region’s economy used to be equal to near 20% of mainland China’s; It is now only equivalent to 2.7%. In addition, where Hong Kong once stood as the foremost location for business dealings, Shanghai and Beijing have stepped up. For the last two decades, Hong Kong was a beacon of international finance and economic growth, but as the economy of the mainland has grown, the importance of Hong Kong’s unique system has shrunk. 

Furthermore, not only does China rely less on the region as it once did, but the rest of the world relies more on China. Accompanying the rise of China is the Communist Party’s belief that they can get away with a lot more. From that position, they are “wagering that the world needs China, with or without Hong Kong.”[4]

The British Response

Despite the hope of the National People’s Congress, the international community has responded swiftly and strongly to the National Security Law. At the forefront of the UK’s response are Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab. Both have emphasised that the UK reveres China and respects its position in the global political economy, a strategic prefacing for their concern with the National Security Law.

As Raab put it on June 2, 

“it is precisely because we recognise China’s role in the world that we expect it to live up to the international obligations, and international responsibilities, that come with it. [...] So the UK stands firm with our international partners in our expectation that China live up to its international obligations under the Sino-British Joint Declaration.”

Raab and Johnson have both drawn attention to the UK’s ongoing commitment to the 1984 agreement, with Johnson fearing that the new law could “be an infringement” of the “1987” agreement. While he may have faltered on the year the agreement was signed, Johnson did not shy away from emphasising its importance. Both Conservatives have drawn upon the UK’s special relationship with the former colony, with Raab going as far as asserting Britain’s “historic responsibilities,” or “duty” to the people of Hong Kong. 

Johnson and Raab’s rhetoric relies on the notion that their respect for the rise of China – Johnson went as far as to call himself a Sinophile – is the very reason that the National People’s Congress should not advance this National Security Law. The British leaders acknowledge that China plays a large role in the international game and thus should be subject to abide by the same “international obligations and international responsibilities” as any other major power. 

With the purview of offering “a hand of friendship and support and loyalty to the people of Hong Kong,” Johnson has promised to adjust Britain’s immigration laws to allow the movement of Hong Kong nationals –  those of whom hold British Overseas Passports – to the UK [5]. This move has upset leaders in the PRC who have, for years, been angered by Britain’s continued relationship with the former colony. 

While the UK’s appeal to the Sino-British Agreement may resonate with Britons, it does not seem to resonate with leaders of the PRC. In 2017, celebrating 20 years since the handover, Chinese Foreign Minister Lu Kang stated that “‘Now that Hong Kong has returned to the motherland for 20 years the Sino-British Joint Declaration, as a historical document, no longer has any realistic meaning,’” [6] It may not be enough for Johnson and Raab to lean on the Sino-British Agreement if China does not respect its legal and moral weight.

Controversy over whether Britain should retaliate more strongly arises when looking at British dependency on the Asian superpower. According to a May 2020 report by the Henry Jackson Society, a conservative think tank, the UK maintains “high levels of dependency” upon China within “critical sectors” of national infrastructure and medicine. The report aims to highlight that British dependence on China has allowed the UK to overlook the PRC’s human rights violations – some of which can be seen in Hong Kong – and their growing military presence in the South China Sea. As to why now, the report details that as the world emerges from this pandemic and China continues to rise, the UK and other countries dependent on China must not bow in the face of the Chinese economy, but rather look to address human rights violations, issues of climate change and security concerns brought by the new superpower. 

At stake is whether the United Kingdom and other western powers reliant on China can use a combined response to deter ongoing apathy to these possible abuses of power. British leaders may need to create more leverage than that outlined by Joint Agreement, a task that may require the UK to reevaluate its economic relationship and risk its diplomatic relationship with the superpower.