Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based journalist. Frank.ching@gmail.com
China is warning Britain in no uncertain terms not to stick its nose into Hong Kong affairs, despite the fact that the two countries co-signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984 and registered it with the United Nations as an international treaty whose terms will last until 2047.
But 30 years is a long time. When the joint declaration was signed, Britain was a major international player, while China was a poor country emerging from a decade of Cultural Revolution chaos.
In the late 1950s, when Chairman Mao Zedong launched the Great Leap Forward, his ambition was to catch up with British steel production in 15 years. Now, of course, China's economy is four times Britain's.
China always insists on its "principled" positions, but principles are subject to change. Thus, when China was weak, it argued for separating business from politics. Now, the shoe is on the other foot and China is quick to economically punish any country guilty of "interfering in its internal affairs," such as by meeting the Dalai Lama in London, Washington or South Africa.
Chinese "internal affairs," it seems, are so extensive that they spill over into every corner of the world.
Beijing is not shy about flexing its economic muscles for political purposes and, on the issue of Hong Kong, major British institutions are apparently falling in line. Both HSBC and Standard Chartered Bank have reportedly, under Chinese pressure, pulled ads from the Apple Daily, a newspaper that is a major thorn in the side of the Chinese government.
Fear has also been voiced that British banks in Hong Kong may co-operate with the Chinese government in future – say, in freezing the accounts of activists who incur Beijing's displeasure.
China's economic muscle is likely to get even stronger. The official Xinhua news agency reported Monday that China will become the world's largest economy in 2024, citing IHS Inc.
Actually, despite Chinese obsession with "foreign forces," both Britain and the United States responded mildly to Beijing's tough stance on universal suffrage in Hong Kong.
In fact, Britain seemed to hail the decision, with a spokesman saying: "We welcome the confirmation that China's objective is for the election of Hong Kong's chief executive through universal suffrage." Former chief secretary Anson Chan, a democracy campaigner, considered the response insulting to Hong Kongers.
As for Washington, its initial reaction was simply to reiterate U.S. support for universal suffrage in Hong Kong, "in accordance with the Basic Law and the aspirations of the Hong Kong people."
Nonetheless, these may not be the final words. The foreign affairs committee of Britain's House of Commons, insisted last week that despite Chinese displeasure, it will go ahead with hearings into relations with Hong Kong to mark the 30th anniversary of the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
As soon as the committee's decision was announced, Chinese Ambassador Liu Xiaoming wrote a letter warning that an inquiry "will ultimately harm the interests of Britain."
This was followed by another missive, this time from the foreign affairs committee of the National People's Congress in Beijing. Writing to its British counterpart, the committee asserted that Hong Kong's "constitutional development and other affairs fall completely within China's internal affairs and brook no interference … from the UK or any other external forces." It asked British parliamentarians to "act with caution" and "bear in mind the larger picture of China-UK relations."
There was a third letter, this one sent from the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in London, presumably at Beijing's direction. Signed by director-general Erica Ng, it called on the committee not to hold its inquiry, citing "internal matters" of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Increasingly, China is using Hong Kong as a shield, getting its administration to object whenever Beijing's policies toward the former British colony come under criticism.
Certainly, in normal circumstances, Britain would have no reason to hold hearings on what its former colonies, such as Singapore and Malaysia, are doing.
But Hong Kong is different, in that Britain agreed to turn over the territory and its people to China in 1997, which promised to adopt the policy of "one country, two systems" for 50 years. It would seem legitimate for Britain – and other countries who heeded Chinese appeals to support the concept of "one country, two systems" 30 years ago – to ask whether China has delivered on its promises.