Opinion | Britain must end its overlord mentality towards Hong Kong

By Tom Fowdy

Yesterday the news emerged that two British Judges seated at the country's supreme court would be resorting from Hong Kong's final court of appeal, citing a deterioration in the legal environment attributed to the National Security Law (NSL). Unsurprisingly, the move was supported by two notorious anti-China figures in the UK cabinet, including foreign secretary Liz Truss and Lord Chancellor Dominic Rabb (also former Foreign Secretary). Truss in particular, believed the continued tenure of the judges risked "legitimizing oppression" and argued the national security law continues to "grossly undermine Hong Kong's fundamental rights and freedoms."

The British state continues to misrepresent the purposes, intentions and function of Hong Kong's national security law, and continues to assume erroneously that they are overlords who have a unilateral right to determine the future of the territory above that of the country which it rightfully is part of. As of March 2022, the NSL has decisively restored order, stability and certainty to the city, ending a foreign-backed political crisis which sought to reduce it to violence, disorder and chaos. The city otherwise continues to sustain a unique social, administrative, judicial and political system from mainland China, of which affirms the basic law's commitment to a "high degree of autonomy".

The Sino-British declaration signed in 1984 was a binding treaty between the British and Chinese governments which facilitated the terms of Hong Kong's return to China. What the agreement was not however, was an "unequal" colonial style treaty whereby the British would gain a monopoly over the interpretation, compliance and enforcement of its terms, and dictate solely what the "interest" of Hong Kong would be. This was not a "gift" to China that could be revoked any time, but a development which China itself understood as the correction of longstanding historical injustices against the country dealt by the hand of Britain.

As one of the opening paragraphs of the agreement reads: "The Government of the People's Republic of China declares that to recover the Hong Kong area (including Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories is the common aspiration of the entire Chinese people". China understood the return of Hong Kong as a looming inevitability. The British government at the time knew this, and in turn the treaty was a compromise and a practical necessity: the best outcome for both sides, not a mere act of good will or as the country today understands it, the permanent right to dictate these terms and conditions against the sovereign interests of China as a whole.

Whilst the British side now argues that the provision of the treaty which guarantees freedoms has been violated by the NSL, this is misleading. The Hong Kong of 2022 is not the Hong Kong of 1984, yet alone everything else in between. The city, embedded deeply with the legacy of colonialism and its own exceptionalist identity, would struggle to accept and come to terms with its new reality as being a part of China. This would set the stage for the unrest which was cultivated and exploited by those seeking to advance political agendas against China itself. The basic law had from the beginning mandated the imposition of a national security law, yet the failure of the SAR to fulfill this basic constitutional issue was part of the problem.

And hence came the riots of 2019-2020. The imposition of the NSL was a necessary, even if extraordinary step which was not designed to change or upheave Hong Kong's political system, but to make it functional against the unprecedented challenges it faced. It must be elaborated the sporadic violence and unrest were pivotal in undermining the status quo enabled in 1997, but that does not mean the Sino-British declaration has been violated. To say such would be to claim, as many in the west erroneously assume, that China does not have full right of sovereignty over Hong Kong, that it must simply sit back and tolerate attempts at insurrection and total destruction of infrastructure.

One might ask, would Britain itself tolerate this at home? The answer is no. The "insulate Britain" protesters which sought to block key motorways and transport infrastructure were jailed, and the government has since even passed more legislation to crack down on disruptive protests. Such incidents when they occur are despised by the press, and it would be argued from a legal perspective such events ought to be curtailed because they present a threat to public order and safety. Is there a blind spot present here to what the rioters engaged in throughout Hong Kong? Because besides this issue, the National Security Law has not rewritten Hong Kong's political system. It continues to have its own administrative, economic and judicial systems, it continues to have a "high degree of autonomy"- but what must be understood is that this does not equate to China having no say, no sovereignty or no stake in its future, with Britain completely dictating the terms.

In this case, the United Kingdom must end its overlord mentality towards Hong Kong. The reality that it is part of China cannot be changed, and even Liz Truss continues to treat the two as separate in her own rhetoric. But there is no going back, thus Britain must cease its interference and come to terms with this new reality.

The author is a well-seasoned writer and analyst with a large portfolio related to China topics, especially in the field of politics, international relations and more. He graduated with an Msc. in Chinese Studies from Oxford University in 2018.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.

Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:

Opinion | Why Pakistan matters

Opinion | Huawei has weathered the storm, and will rise again

Opinion | Cracks emerge in America's 'Indo-Pacific' approach as Ukraine conflict takes its toll