China’s self-interest remains our best hope of defending Hong Kong’s freedoms

The last hope of British policy in Hong Kong was that the self-interest of China’s rulers would protect the freedoms and autonomy of the people there. That calculation held when the Chinese signed the 1984 joint declaration, a treaty guaranteeing the rights of the people of Hong Kong; it continued to hold when the territory was handed over to China in 1997; and it has survived several tests since then.

Now, however, it seems that the interest Xi Jinping, as leader of the Communist Party of China, has in Hong Kong’s prosperity is no longer enough to guarantee its freedoms. Partly, this is because mainland China has become so much richer – many of China’s cities are golden egg-laying geese equivalent to the former British colony. And partly, it is as a result of China’s growing economic power; its political strength around the world is such that it no longer feels the need to defer so much to the international legal order, largely European and American in origin.

At the same time, Xi represents a shift in Chinese political culture from the consensual pragmatism of Deng Xiaoping and his successors, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao, back towards the more personal dictatorial style of Mao. This has involved a more repressive policy towards the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang, a more aggressive stance towards Taiwan, a more forceful trade policy – and now the new security law in Hong Kong.

It is hard to fault the response of the British government. Dominic Raab, the foreign secretary, struck the right tone of outrage tempered by a desire to maintain good relations with a global superpower. In the end, the only leverage the rest of the world has against the Chinese government remains its self-interest. This is not just a matter of Hong Kong’s prosperity but of the indirect benefits of China being a trusted trade partner. As Mr Raab said, the breach of its promises to the people of Hong Kong and of its obligations under international law “undermine international trust in the Chinese government’s willingness to keep its word”.

It was striking that the mood of the House of Commons was unanimous. There is not much the government can do to mobilise international opinion to defend the rule of law – given that China has a veto on the United Nations Security Council.

The prime minister, Mr Raab and the home secretary have agreed on the one thing that a Conservative government elected on a pledge to reduce immigration might find difficult, namely honouring the UK’s obligations to those in Hong Kong with British national (overseas) status. Yesterday, the government announced that all such passport holders and their dependents, an estimated 2.9 million people, would be granted the right to live and work in the UK and eventually to acquire citizenship.

That decision puts no great pressure on the Chinese government, but it is the right thing to do.

The more divisive issue in British politics is likely to be the question of economic measures against China. Before the coronavirus struck – and the response to the disease has helped to undermine China’s standing in the world – there was an unexpected revolt brewing in the Conservative Party over the part to be played by the tech giant Huawei in building our 5G network. We have come a long way in a short time from David Cameron and George Osborne’s naive trade mission to the court of the Chinese dictator.

It was significant that Oliver Dowden, the digital secretary, on Tuesday suggested a further review of Huawei’s role. That was prompted by US sanctions directed against China as part of Donald Trump’s trade war with Beijing.

Now it is time to step up Britain’s role in leading such trade-distancing efforts. The self-interest of China’s leader in international trade remains our best hope of persuading him to abide by international law, in Hong Kong and elsewhere.