We must not let China use Covid as cover for a Hong Kong power grab

As Beijing tightens its grip, the UK should extend the citizenship rights of an ex-colony’s harassed people

There’s something happening in China and the West needs to pay attention. No, it’s not wet markets or the suppression of whistleblowing Covid doctors. It’s not the attempts to interfere with other countries’ elections. It’s not even using technology as a Trojan horse to gain access to national communication systems, or threatening trading sanctions or tariffs to demonstrate economic might.

All of these we’ve already seen, of course, and, to our shame, have either been too busy, too cowed, too fearful or too complacent to do much about. What’s happening now is a far more brazen, more aggressive, more open flouting of international law.

This week, the Communist Party of China submitted a draft resolution to its parliament. So far, so procedural. But the resolution seeks to impose a new national security law on the city of Hong Kong, and the parliament – only ever a rubber-stamping exercise – is sure to pass it.

It seeks to criminalise secession, subversion and terrorism, along with any activities by foreign forces that interfere with Hong Kong. The way the

Chinese authorities work, the resolution is passed first and the fleshing out of various remits, actions and consequences comes later, so Hong Kong’s worried citizenry will need to wait to find out exactly how much of a power grab this is. Nerves are already frayed at the suggestion that the Ministry of State Security – sometimes referred to as “China’s KGB” – will be opening an office in the city.

The moves are enough to have prompted street protests in Hong Kong and, internationally, more than 200 politicians and policymakers from 23 countries to sign a statement denouncing Beijing’s action. China will be delighted, however, that a world media buried deep in Covid coverage has left such a move off the front pages and afforded it much less prominence than protests last year in response to a new extradition law.

But this is a far more egregious act and demands a swift and united response. When the handover of Hong Kong from Britain to China happened in 1997, the two sides drew up a treaty protecting Hong Kongers’ freedoms – freedom of assembly, of speech and to exercise democracy in their own way. It also enshrined Hong Kong’s independent judiciary and codified that the city was responsible for its own security. These are freedoms enjoyed nowhere else in China and the Joint Declaration was an official international treaty, lodged with the United Nations, and had a writ that was to run until 2047.

The current power play by China – while the world’s attention is elsewhere – drives a cart and horses through international law. It makes a mockery of the “one country, two systems” promises made to the people of Hong Kong as handover occurred. But the international community in general, and the United Kingdom in particular, are not powerless to act.

Firstly, this needs to be put firmly on the agenda of the next G7 meeting. As the former Hong Kong governor Chris Patten has argued, continuing to allow China to act without sanction or rebuke only encourages more aggressive behaviour and makes future action that much more difficult.

And, closer to home, the United Kingdom should make good on its responsibilities to Hong Kong’s people. In the 1980s Hong Kongers’ status changed from the same as that of any other British citizens to citizens of British dependent territories, stripping them of residency rights.

When handover happened, that status changed again to British nationals (overseas) citizens – enjoying a UK passport and consular support, but no right to live and work long term in the UK.

However the level of fear running up to the handover created concerns of mass emigration from Hong Kong, threatening the city’s stability and the function of its institutions. So the UK changed its decision (again) and reinstated full British citizenship for certain key figures – judges, senior police officers, etc – deemed essential to the good governance of the city. It betted that by enshrining the ability to leave at any time, most of these figures would choose to stay. They did.

And something of the same needs to happen now. China’s sustained erosion of rights and freedoms in Hong Kong – backed by force – is making the city’s citizens nervous once again. Nearby Taiwan has already seen a 150 per cent increase in Hong Kongers seeking refuge in the country during the first four months of 2020, and a presidential offer of all “necessary assistance”. But the country with the historic and moral responsibility to act here is the UK.

As the situation deteriorates, it’s a position that’s gaining ground in Westminster. Tom Tugendhat, the energetic chairman of the Commons foreign affairs committee, argues: “The UK had obligations to Hong Kong citizens before 1997, and the extension of overseas citizenship, which is in many ways a second-tier citizenship, was a mistake, and I think it’s one that should be corrected. At a time when there are clearly tensions in Hong Kong, the UK could reassure many Hong Kong citizens that their existing rights are recognised by the UK, and they are valued.”

It is complicated, however, as Mr Tugendhat admits: “These are still Chinese citizens from the special autonomous region, so I don’t think the Chinese government would see them as anything other than Chinese citizens under a slightly different status.” Indeed, under international law, the UK can’t simply spray the populace of Hong Kong with UK passports and declare that everyone living there is now British. What it can do, though, is change the domestic rules for those already holding British citizenship (overseas) passports.

By allowing people in this group, for example, the right to live and work in the UK for up to 10 years, it will settle the nerves of those in Hong Kong, wary of what China chooses to do next. It shows China that Britain is not afraid to underwrite the freedoms that Hong Kongers enjoy and, for those who do choose to come to the UK, after five years they can apply for indefinite leave to remain and for citizenship. Over to you, Home Secretary.