Will the UK Play a Part in Hong Kong’s Future?

China’s foreign ministry recent barring of a British parliamentary delegation from entering Hong Kong in response to pro-democracy protests has raised significant questions on the UK’s role in Hong Kong.

China’s foreign ministry recent barring of a British parliamentary delegation from entering Hong Kong in response to pro-democracy protests has raised significant questions on the UK’s role in Hong Kong.

In response to the Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Sir Richard Ottoway’s claim that the UK has a duty to monitor the progress in the implementation of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, and the Minister for Hong Kong Affairs Hugo Swire’s affirmation that the UK not only has a ‘legal interest’ but also a ‘moral obligation’ to do so, a delegation of UK parliamentarians had planned to travel to Hong Kong in December. Amid a months-long continuing protest by Hong Kong residents who have called for direct nomination of the next Hong Kong Chief Executive in 2017, China barred the delegation from entering Hong Kong. China’s foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying pointed out that Britain no longer has the right of oversight or any moral responsibility toward Hong Kong.

So who is right?

Hong Kong island was ceded to Britain in 1842 at the end of the first Opium War while Kowloon and the New Territories were either perpetually leased after the Second Opium War or, by an 1898 treaty, given in a 99-year lease to UK. With the approaching termination of the lease in July 1997 and the need to reassure foreign investors that Hong Kong’s flourishing free market economy will continue, China and the United Kingdom reached an agreement on Hong Kong’s future set forth in the Joint Declaration.

Under this agreement, the UK was to return Hong Kong in its entirety to China in 1997. In turn, China promised to govern Hong Kong for 50 years under a ‘One Country, Two Systems’ policy, with ‘Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong’, and given not only ‘a high degree of autonomy’ but the same lifestyle to which they were accustomed under the British.

Nowhere in the Joint Declaration was there any specification that the UK has the duty to monitor conditions in Hong Kong after 1997. Subsequent to the signing of the Declaration, China drafted the Basic Law in accordance with the Declaration’s principles and promulgated it in 1990. Implementation of the Declaration came when the Basic Law became the de facto ‘Constitution’ of Hong Kong in July 1997 and achieved its main purpose of a smooth transfer of sovereignty. Clearly then the UK’s legal interest in Hong Kong terminated with its implementation.

China has in fact gone much further in the Basic Law in meeting the political aspirations of Hong Kong residents. Article I of Annex I in the Joint Declaration simply states, ‘The chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People’s Government’. Article 45 of the Basic Law further expands political freedom not up until then enjoyed by Hong Kong residents by asserting ‘the ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures’. Note that universal suffrage here refers to one person, one vote in an election after the nomination of candidates.

In 2007, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC) agreed to Hong Kong’s request for universal suffrage in the 2017 election of its next Chief Executive. In August 2014, Beijing announced the framework for the nomination of two to three candidates by a 1200-member Nominating Committee whose members are from different subsectors, presumably broadly representative of Hong Kong society, such as education, retail, banking, social welfare and religion. Millions of Hong Kong residents would then vote to elect their next Chief Executive. From China’s point of view, the framework not only accords with the articles in the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, but also makes universal suffrage a reality only 20 years into Hong Kong’s return to China.

The ensuing protest is misleadingly characterised by the media as a civil disobedience movement. In fact, protestors demand that candidate nomination be open to the general populace for fear of Beijing’s undue influence on the selection process. It is rare for a large complex modern society to practice direct democracy.  Especially, not in one newly emerged from colonial rule with few institutions to support it. While no consensus existed initially with regard to what constitutes a democratic nomination process, opposition to the August framework united pro-democracy leaders. They accuse Beijing of not meeting their demands for ‘genuine’ universal suffrage, as they believe nomination impossible in a pro-Beijing Nomination Committee. In effect, they demand a change in the Basic Law.

These protestors have the freedom to protest beyond that enjoyed by citizens of western democracies. No city in a western democracy would have stomached a paralysing but continuing two-month-long protest with dwindling support. The Hong Kong government and police have exhibited exemplary tolerance in this respect. And China had not sent in the PLA to quell the ‘umbrella revolution’ as feared.

It is ironic for UK members of parliament to claim their country has a ‘moral obligation’ to oversee the implementation of democracy in Hong Kong. The notion of democracy for Hong Kong simply did not enter UK politicians’ heads until after the country had agreed to return Hong Kong to China. At that point, the UK introduced a modicum of democracy, confined to the election of Legislative Council members, into its colony. The governor and the Executive Council were as always, appointed by London: a wholly undemocratic arrangement.

The UK’s moral fibre is at its finest in Annex II of the Joint Declaration. The UK would not even grant ‘right of abode’ or citizenship to Hong Kong civil servants who feared retaliation from China for having served the British Empire faithfully. Did the UK respond with a sense of ‘moral obligation’ then? China is right: on all counts, the United Kingdom has neither the legal interest in nor moral obligation to the implementation of democracy in Hong Kong.

Should the UK monitor Hong Kong’s governance? is republished with permission from East Asia Forum