What is the purpose of an agreement? It is a name for something that both sides must stick to. Whether in business or across borders, agreements, a deal, are means for cooperation to be reached on a key issue. As was (and still is) evident with Brexit, this is not easy. Disputes and conflict over certain wording and clauses can potentially lead to any negotiation falling apart. While two sides may begin miles apart, compromise can - and should - eventually be reached.
This was the case with Hong Kong. A British colony for over a century, the UK handed back the region to China in 1997. One of Tony Blair’s first acts of foreign policy, following the 1984 British-Sino Declaration, the agreement meant, while the UK would no longer rule over Hong Kong, China wouldn’t immediately have complete control. There would be a 50 year period - between 1997 and 2047 - where Hong Kong would remain autonomous, under the rules of the ‘one country, two systems’ principle. I have found elements of this agreement to always be ambiguous. What would happen after 2047? While Hong Kong retained many current freedoms, like freedom of assembly and an independent judiciary, these could easily be removed after the 50 years had passed. This ambiguity can’t have helped to combat China’s general authoritarianism. Since last year, a number of protests have taken place in Hong Kong, fearful of a bill that would allow Hong Kong citizens to be extradited to mainland China. Thankfully, that bill was scrapped. But it was only one erosion of freedom of many. Since the coronavirus, China have used the opportunity to throttle dissent and disagreement. A new security bill could this time suppress dissent within Hong Kong. This is a clear violation of the Joint Declaration that would allow Hong Kong to remain autonomous; it is clear China are simply doing in 2020 what they would have the power to enforce in 2047. International condemnation has sparked from across the globe, with the UK, USA, Canada and Australia issuing a joint statement of condemnation. What can the UK realistically do? Even though we gave up this colony 23 years ago, it is clear that, within this 50 year transition period, the nation still holds a deep attachment to Hong Kong. It is a feeling that certainly wasn’t present when the government - mainly under David Cameron and George Osborne - presented a golden age relationship with China. This included, later passed under Boris Johnson, using Huawei as part of Britain’s national infrastructure. I must admit, initially, I was very relaxed about Huawei’s presence within the UK. I was wrong. A combination of China’s response to the coronavirus, their new security law and a better understanding on my part of their brutal regime has changed my mind. I hope Boris Johnson reconsiders and Huawei’s introduction is reversed. Just as the treaty is ambiguous about Hong Kong’s status after 2047, so the UK’s realistic response remains ambiguous. A significant decline in Britain’s relationship with China seems inevitable, not least as Boris Johnson, like all Prime Ministers, seeks a closer, ‘special’ relationship with America. Great discussion has turned to inviting some Hong Kong’s citizens to the UK, with the potential for them to reach full citizenship. With their safety at home seriously under threat, the UK has almost become a refuge for leading a free life. Unsurprisingly, this has led to a negative reaction from China, stating that there will be consequences for the UK. It is admirable that discussions have turned to helping such a large proportion of people. While this is yet to form official government policy, discussions are obviously turning in that direction. But who would this plan apply to? Would it be all Hong Kong citizens or just those born before the handover? The latter could be extremely unpractical; many older citizens will have had families and children born since the handover. As with most government policies, more detail and support is required. If anything is to come out of the wider conversations about racism following the murder of George Floyd in America, I hope the British Empire, and its exploitation, is properly incorporated into the British education system. Only by understanding our past are we able to properly appreciate the present and make a brighter future. There will have been so many former colonies across the world that the UK would have ruled and exploited. These may now be governed by similarly unfavourable characters. Can we really help all of these regions? It seems unlikely. While it is pleasing then, that the UK wants to specifically help Hong Kong, no doubt because the agreement, this should be done recognising our selectivity. Clearly help and support isn’t being provided to all areas. Let us assume the UK decided to fully extend its support to Hong Kong, welcoming aboard all its citizens to the UK on a permanent basis. Hong Kong has a population of over 7.5 million. Even if only 10% took up the offer, that would still mean 750,000 people arriving in a short space of time. In principle, I have no problem with this. My general stance towards immigration is liberal. While I don’t support absolute open borders, I believe, generally, people should be able to try their luck in different countries and that the accidents of birth shouldn’t prevent someone from emigrating overseas. However, the UK needs to have the effective infrastructure to welcome such a large volume of people. It wouldn’t matter what country these individuals were arriving from. The individuals could even be migrating within the UK; if say, a large proportion of London’s population decided to move to Cornwall, that would present difficult infrastructure problems. The same is true here. While the UK clearly had good intentions, wanting to help the individuals of Hong Kong against potential evil, this needs to be carefully thought through. A quick rush to judgement could lead to a negative experience, both for those currently in the UK and individuals arriving from Hong Kong. The question is all about infrastructure. Do we have enough houses for those that want to arrive? Is the NHS - thankfully not overwhelmed by coronavirus - able to cope with the influx of individuals in a short space of time? Can our public transport systems - sadly on the wane as individuals return to more private car usage - be up to date for a new workers? These are questions that have to be considered. I have long supported liberalising the Green Belt, both as a means to connect more individuals to cities and build hundreds of thousands of beautiful homes. Similarly, I believe projects like HS2 (and hopefully HS3) must go ahead to ensure our transport infrastructure is suitable for the 21st century. The government must attach more detail to those questions. So much of the situation, whether domestically or geopolitically, is uncertain and rapidly volatile. The process of leaving one’s home, moving thousands of miles in fear of one’s existence, must be one of the hardest human decisions in the world. For those that emigrate from Hong Kong to the UK, Britain has a duty to ensure the necessary infrastructure is in place so that they can have a meaningful life. Immigration has long been talked down across the world; I personally believe it should be a celebration of ideas and innovation. In this circumstance, as I’ve said, the UK’s show of solidarity is deeply admirable. But whether it is individuals from Hong Kong or any other region within the world, their arrival within the UK can only be a success if we have suitable foundations to accommodate them.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|