If china imposes colonial rule on hong kong, they must set our people free | thearticle

Hong Kong was once a British colony — the last, indeed, of any significance. Since its liberation from the Japanese in 1945, the port flourished mightily under a regime of benign neglect.

When we relinquished sovereignty in 1997, the United Kingdom had long since ceased to be an imperial power. This is emphatically not the case with China, which is now treating Hong Kong as

if its people had neither rights nor freedoms. The People’s Republic took over Hong Kong on condition that its unique identity was respected. This is the meaning of “one country, two

systems”. What Boris Johnson calls this “precious concept” was enshrined in a solemn treaty, the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, given constitutional force in a Basic Law.

Disregarding these treaty obligations, however, President Xi Jinping has decided to treat Hong Kong like a colony. The “National Law” that Beijing is imposing is in reality an act of

colonialism. Hong Kong has an entirely different history from mainland China. A stark example of that difference is the Chinese attempt to ban commemorations of the Tiananmen Square massacre

in Hong Kong. On the mainland, these tragic and traumatic events  have been airbrushed out of history. Hongkongers will not connive in such a monstrous suppression of the truth. To expect

them to kowtow to Beijing is not only unreasonable: it is also illegal. Britain is not the only country to be concerned about the denial of Hong Kong’s “high degree of autonomy”, that the

Declaration promised to respect. Both Australia and Canada have also offered refuge to Hongkongers who cannot stomach life in a colony of the Chinese Communist Party. Others are likely to

flee to Taiwan, which fears for its own independence and is watching the West’s reaction nervously. Why is Xi’s China upsetting the delicate equilibrium that has preserved peace in the

Pacific for so long? It is often explained by the rise of nationalism. Yet a nationalist China ought to be able to accommodate Hong Kong’s separate identity. Important as it is as a

financial and trading centre, the city state is tiny compared to China. No, the ideology that motivates the present Chinese leadership is not nationalism, but imperialism. In one sense,

China has always been an imperial power. But the dynasties that ruled the old empire that collapsed just over a century ago never had global ambitions. Oriental despots as they were, the

Chinese emperors tolerated a good deal of autonomy on the periphery of their vast realm. The same was true of their immediate successors. Indeed, modern Chinese identity was forged in the

struggle against another imperial power, Japan, which occupied Manchuria and later invaded other Chinese provinces. That all changed in 1949 when Mao Zedong’s Communists seized power and

drove out Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists. Communism, even “with Chinese characteristics”, always has the potential to morph into imperialism. This became apparent in Russia under Lenin,

Stalin and their successors. Though Mao’s China invaded Tibet and menaced Taiwan, he never had the resources to range further afield, let alone take on the United States. But the “Great

Helmsman”, as he liked to style himself, supported attempts to spread Communism and undermine democracy throughout the world — with considerable success, especially in south-east Asia.

Chinese involvement in such subversion diminished after Mao’s death in 1976, under the cautious leadership of Deng Xiaoping, though it never entirely vanished.   Under Xi Jinping, however,

China no longer needs proxies. The pursuit of global domination is plain for all to see. But Hong Kong is a stumbling block. Its liberties are a standing rebuke to the mainland’s

dictatorship of the plutocracy. Xi has evidently run out of patience with Hongkongers’ defence of their precious heritage. He is determined to crush them — and he must be stopped. In his

article for the_ Times _today, the Prime Minister adopts a suitably diplomatic tone. He speaks of China’s “reputation for fair dealing and magnanimity”, which could be jeopardised by its

handling of Hong Kong. He reassures Beijing that “Britain does not seek to prevent China’s rise”, but wants “a modern and mature relationship, based on mutual respect and recognising China’s

place in the world”. All that Britain expects, he insists, is that China  should “abide by international agreements”. If the Prime Minister feels he must adopt such deferential language to

avoid provoking the dragon, let him do so. But there is nothing mature or respectful about Beijing’s _modus operandi. _Naked military power, bullying propaganda and technological terrorism

are its weapons of choice. Xi has given notice that he will not hesitate to use brute force in Hong Kong. We must be prepared for the possibility that the British National (Overseas)

passports by which 350,000 Hongkongers set such store and for which another 2.5 million are entitled to apply will not be respected by the Chinese authorities. If Xi is prepared to crush

Hong Kong’s rights, he may not balk at keeping its people as hostages. If he did so, what could we do about it? The answer is that the UK would then join the US and any other countries that

care about human rights in ostracising China on a scale that would give even its present brutal leadership pause. Chinese imperialism is a threat to global peace and prosperity. A line must

be drawn, not in the sand but in the sea. If Hong Kong were to be reduced to the status of a penal colony, then Hongkongers who are bearers of, or entitled to, British passports would be our

responsibility. These are our people. If necessary, we will have to persuade China to set our people free.