ON JULY 15th Hong Kong’s leader, Leung Chun-ying, presented a report to China’s leaders in Beijing on how to reform the territory’s electoral system. In it he suggested that most Hong Kongers were perfectly happy with a system under which a rigged committee of worthies weeds out anyone the mainland does not like, and did not want greater political freedom. The report angered many in the former British colony, who complain that China no longer respects the unique formula of “one country, two systems” under which Hong Kong is supposed to be governed and believe its actions so far suggest it will not keep its promise to allow universal suffrage in the election of the territory’s leader by 2017. Amid the uproar, however, one voice has been notably silent: that of Britain.
In 1984 Margaret Thatcher signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration with a Chinese leader, Zhao Ziyang. The document laid the groundwork for Hong Kong’s Basic Law, its post-handover constitution. For several years after Britain handed over power in 1997, China adhered scrupulously to the Basic Law. This week, amid growing concerns for Hong Kong’s autonomy, two senior Hong Kong politicians, Martin Lee Chu-ming and Anson Chan Fang On-sang, visited London hoping to meet David Cameron. They succeeded only in seeing Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, who told them that Britain “will not shy away from defending the principle of one country, two systems”. Yet that is precisely what Britain is doing.
As China has become more powerful, it has exerted increasing influence in Hong Kong—over the electoral process, by leaning on editors to tone down criticism of China (see article), and through its pressure on religious groups, such as Falun Gong, that are banned on the mainland. A white paper written by the central government and published in June declared that Hong Kong’s autonomy was in the gift of Beijing. It also called on the territory’s judiciary to recognise that it has a duty to “be patriotic”—ie, mindful of China’s national interests—a contradiction of Hong Kong’s common-law English system and a threat to judicial independence.
A right royal welcome
The week after the white paper was issued, China’s prime minister, Li Keqiang, was being feted on a state visit to Britain. He got an audience with the queen—a privilege normally reserved for heads of state. The trip was billed as a rapprochement after a period in which China had kept Britain in the cold. Two years ago, Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, met the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s exiled spiritual leader, whom Beijing labels a “splittist”. As a result, China shunned British leaders and businessmen. Signalling that China was willing to put the past behind it, Mr Li signed deals worth £14 billion ($24 billion). Nobody needed to spell out what from now on would be the terms of the relationship: deals would flow, but only for as long as Britain kept its nose out of Chinese affairs.
The consequences of that pact are now becoming clear. This month the British foreign secretary issued the latest of his twice-yearly reports on Hong Kong. He noted that some in Hong Kong had said that the white paper threatened the city’s autonomy. But it did not contain a word of criticism for the document itself, nor for the government in Beijing.
That is bad for Hong Kong. Its role as a global financial centre is based upon the freedom of its press, the independence of its judiciary and the rule of law. Hong Kong’s citizens risk seeing the autonomy guaranteed by the Basic Law eroded.
For British firms, the price of confronting China could be high. But in terms of the country’s broader interests, failing to do so would be costlier. Countries that renege on treaty commitments lose credibility. Moreover, Britain’s outsize diplomatic clout derives from its values as a democracy and its ability as a permanent member of the Security Council to galvanise coalitions. Its behaviour over Hong Kong suggests that either or both of those sources of strength are failing, for it seems unwilling to use its clout to defend its values.
Britain alone might not curb China’s behaviour. But other countries, including America, are alarmed at Chinese bullying in neighbouring seas and distant continents. If Britain were willing to stand by Hong Kong’s liberties, they would be prepared to do so too. If Britain kow-tows to China, why should they bother?