51吃瓜

The British government has failed to condemn China for breaking its promise of greater democracy in Hong Kong.

If you were told the Chinese government 鈥� an unelected, one-party state 鈥� will decide who you can vote for, what would your response be? Not only would you likely object, you would expect others, especially democracies, to loudly condemn the idea. But Britain has done just the opposite to the people of Hong Kong, when it failed to call China out for breaking its promise of greater democracy for the island territory.

In a September 4 , Britain 鈥渨elcome[d]鈥� China鈥檚 commitment to universal suffrage, and merely noted that the restrictions imposed by Beijing on candidate nominations in Hong Kong 鈥� which profoundly undermine whether elections are democratic 鈥� will 鈥渄isappoint鈥� some.聽If, as the United Kingdom claimed, 鈥渢he important thing is that the people of Hong Kong have a genuine choice,鈥� it ought to have unequivocally condemned Beijing鈥檚 strategy.

On August 31, China鈥檚 legislature laid down a strict process for Hong Kong鈥檚 top office, ruling out open nominations. Under this system, only those favored by Beijing can be chosen as candidates for Hong Kong鈥檚 top office. The move shatters the dream of democracy for most people in Hong Kong, who have long shown their strong desire for the right to choose their own leader.聽These views have been made abundantly clear in public opinion polls and annual pro-democracy demonstrations; this year, half a million people took to the streets.

The British government appears to have forgotten about the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, an international treaty.聽Under that binding agreement between the UK and China that set out the terms of Hong Kong鈥檚 return to Chinese sovereignty, the territory is promised a 鈥渉igh degree of autonomy,鈥� and that the Hong Kong government can decide all policies on its own except foreign affairs and defense. Yet the September 4 British statement made no reference at all to Beijing鈥檚 violations of that agreement.聽Nor did the UK raise concerns in June when Beijing issued a 鈥渨hite paper鈥� asserting that China has 鈥渙verall jurisdiction鈥� over the territory, and that Hong Kong鈥檚 level of autonomy is dependent on Beijing鈥檚 wishes.

Both developments created an immediate uproar from people in Hong Kong.聽But although Chinese Premier Li Keqiang visited the UK shortly after the 鈥渨hite paper鈥� was released, British Prime Minister David Cameron did not publicly raise the issue of Hong Kong with Li, nor did he protest in any visible way the flagrant breach of a bilateral treaty.

… 鈥渨elcoming鈥� Beijing鈥檚 decision is a bridge too far, and one that no self-respecting citizen of a democracy should cross.聽In a March 2013 interview, Chancellor George Osborne said he wanted China to 鈥渓ook to the UK as a home you can base some of your activities in.鈥澛燚oes that mean he would welcome the Chinese Communist Party to dictate who he can vote for?

This most recent betrayal of Hong Kong is not an isolated incident. Despite the initial assertion of Cameron鈥檚 coalition government in 2010 that it would 鈥渟tand 鈥� firm on human rights in all our bilateral relationships鈥� with China while seeking closer ties, the UK seems to have opted to raise issues only behind closed doors 鈥� if at all. The British government, unlike others, chose not to visibly commemorate the 25^th anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre. The UK has been inconsistent in its position toward meeting the Dalai Lama since Gordon Brown鈥檚 tenure. And it wasn鈥檛 until the waning years of British rule of Hong Kong that limited voting rights were granted.

Such appeasement of China over Hong Kong鈥檚 rights is implicitly and sometimes explicitly presented by British officials as necessary for better trade relations. Cameron said, during his visit to China in 2013, that the two countries should deepen 鈥渕utual respect and understanding鈥� in order to 鈥渞emove barriers to trade and investment and partnership between our two countries.鈥�

There is nothing wrong about deepening mutual respect, trade and investment. But a shocking failure to defend basic rights for Hong Kong鈥檚 7 million people has been interpreted by the Chinese government as weakness. One wonders what diktats Beijing issues to London on trade, security or major international issues, or whether London recognizes how its diplomatic, economic and strategic interests are threatened by Beijing鈥檚 disdain for human rights.

An immediate concern for the UK ought to be its ability to advocate for fair trials for its citizens detained in China鈥檚 Kafkaesque judicial system. In 2009, British citizen Akmal Shaikh was executed after being convicted on drug smuggling charges, despite more than two dozen interventions by the British government arguing that his bipolar disorder warranted a forensic examination that might have exempted him from criminal responsibility under Chinese law. In August 2014, British national Peter Humphrey, who ran a well-known due diligence consultancy, was sentenced to more than two years in prison for 鈥渋llegally obtaining private personal information.鈥� Humphrey had been forced to confess on national television, and was initially denied the right to have family members and consular officials attend his trial.

Prior to Hong Kong鈥檚 return to Chinese sovereignty, many warned about the slow erosion of Hong Kong鈥檚 civil liberties, although Britain often failed to sound the alarm.

But 鈥渨elcoming鈥� Beijing鈥檚 decision is a bridge too far, and one that no self-respecting citizen of a democracy should cross.聽In a March 2013 interview, Chancellor George Osborne said he wanted China to 鈥渓ook to the UK as a home you can base some of your activities in.鈥澛燚oes that mean he would welcome the Chinese Communist Party to dictate who he can vote for? Most probably not.

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜’s editorial policy.

/