July 17, 2014 4:31 pm

Britain slams the door on Hong Kong’s freedoms

By Philip Stephens

Weakness wins no special favours for UK business from China

©Ingram Pinn

Anson Chan and Martin Lee have been in London. Veteran champions of freedom and the rule of law in Hong Kong, they were hoping for moral support in upholding the Joint Declaration under which the territory passed from British to Chinese rule in 1997. They were greeted instead like prodigal distant relatives trying to barge back into the ancestral home.

When Ms Chan, the former head of the Hong Kong civil service, and the distinguished lawyer and politician Mr Lee visited Washington a little while ago they were received by Joe Biden, the US vice-president. John Kerry was out of town, but the US state department offered a serious hearing. David Cameron’s Downing Street ruled they should see no one in London above a middle-ranking Foreign Office minister. The conversation went nowhere.

More

ON THIS STORY

• Editorial Britain must stand up for Hong Kong
• HK starts overhaul of electoral system
• Hong Kong activists hit out at UK
• UK keeps out of debate on HK judiciary
• Liu Xiaoming Follow the Basic Law

ON THIS TOPIC

• HK divorce rattles family trust industry
• Clegg criticises Tories over Hong Kong
• Feedback Big Four backlash
• HSBC modifies report on Hong Kong

PHILIP STEPHENS

• ‘The Too Difficult Box’, edited by Charles Clarke
• Trust is crucial for euro
• Money out of misery
• Balham – murder in suburbia

Thankfully, Nick Clegg, Mr Cameron’s Liberal Democrat deputy in the Tory-led coalition, has an independent mind and received the two campaigners anyhow. Number 10, though, had sent the intended message to Beijing. China could be assured that Britain is not taking sides in the dispute about Beijing’s tightening grip on the governance of Hong Kong. The Foreign Office merely notes concern among some “commentators” about China’s dilution of past guarantees.

How things have changed. When Ms Chan and Mr Lee were in London a few years ago they were feted by Mr Cameron himself. The Tories, they were assured, would be stalwart in defence of Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms. It was Margaret Thatcher, after all, who had insisted that one China must have two political systems when she agreed the handover with Deng Xiaoping.

That was before Mr Cameron took office; and, more saliently, before the punitive freeze in bilateral relations imposed by Beijing after he had the temerity to meet the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s spiritual leader. The prime minister yielded, offering tribute to Xi Jinping, China’s president, during a trade mission to Beijing last year.

The message disseminated through Whitehall this week was that he did not want to find himself back on the naughty step. Mr Clegg was left to wonder how it now falls to the Liberal Democrats to defend an agreement signed by Thatcher and ratified by John Major, her Conservative successor.

Many in the business community welcome such reticence. The Occupy Central pro-democracy campaign has been roundly condemned by the Hong Kong offices of the big four global accountancy companies – presumably at Beijing’s behest. Two London-based banks – HSBC and Standard Chartered – have abruptly withdrawn their advertising from Hong Kong’s Apple Daily, a newspaper backing recent street protests. The banks deny they were responding to Chinese pressure.

I suppose it was possible, if only just, to argue that Mr Cameron’s crouch in Beijing was embarrassing, but ultimately inconsequential. Mr Xi’s administration has made it clear that it sees Britain as a small power – a “historical relic” as the state-backed media likes to say.

What London says, or in this case refuses to say, about respect for the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law matters

Neutrality over Hong Kong, however, is different. Even if one puts aside the profound moral obligation to the citizens of the formerly British territory, the Joint Declaration imposes a legal duty on the British government. Registered as an international treaty with the UN, it confers responsibility on both signatories.

Mr Xi has decided otherwise. In keeping with his self-consciously assertive foreign policy, a recent Chinese white paper removed Britain from the script. The autonomy enjoyed by Hong Kong was at China’s discretion. Chris Patten, the last governor before the handover, has noted that a British government would never have signed any document as now framed by Beijing.

The white paper also chips away at the rule of law by suggesting the judiciary be seen as a branch of the administration rather than an independent guardian of the law. As for a long-planned extension of the suffrage for elections to choose Hong Kong’s chief executive, Beijing insists candidates must to screened to ensure that only those who “love China” are eligible. China and the Communist party are synonymous.

All this adds up to a sustained effort to tighten Beijing’s grip on Hong Kong. Business and the media are under strong pressure to conform. To Ms Chan and Mr Lee – and to the tens of thousands who have publicly protested against the proposed election rules – China wants to administer a political system more akin to that of authoritarian Singapore than to the, albeit constrained, autonomy envisaged in the Joint Declaration.

Mr Cameron, some will say, cannot do much to stop this. The people of Hong Kong, however, are unlikely to accept meekly such decrees from Beijing. Some 800,000 took part in an online poll calling for a more open nomination process. What London says, or in this case refuses to say, about respect for the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law matters. If Britain is unwilling to speak out, where else can Hong Kong look for support?

The curious thing is that neither Britain nor business will profit from looking the other way. Weakness does not win special favours for British business from Mr Xi. It does undermine Britain’s international standing. Washington wonders if Mr Cameron’s government will ever take a stand on anything. And Hong Kong’s long-term prosperity rests above all on confidence in the inviolability of the rule of law. There is no need to pick a fight with Beijing. But Hong Kong’s freedom and Britain’s credibility in the world are inextricably linked.

philip.stephens@ft.com

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fb8042d8-0d98-11e4-815f-00144feabdc0.html