It’s been a year since hundreds of thousands of people first took to the streets of Hong Kong, protesting against a controversial bill that would have allowed extradition to mainland China. 

Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, was eventually forced to abandon the legislation, but since then the protests have morphed into something greater, driven by calls for greater democracy and an inquiry into allegations of brutality by both the Hong Kong Government and Hong Kong Police Force. As a new wave of protest takes hold, the situation in Hong Kong raises serious questions for its former colonial ruler.

The latest controversy centres on a proposed new security law, which would “make it a crime to undermine Beijing’s authority” in Hong Kong. The proposed law is supported by a small percentage of members of the governing Legislative Council, and has the backing Carrie Lam. However, as one pro-democracy legislator Claudia Mo sees it, the bill is “the start of a new but sad chapter for Hong Kong,” adding, “Hong Kong as we knew it is finally dead.” The end result is that the conflict between those who are pro-democracy and those who are pro-Beijing is now at its highest level seen since the handover of Hong Kong in July 1997. 

Under the terms of the handover, the former British colony has enjoyed some freedoms not seen in mainland China – an approach known as ‘one country, two systems’ – and these are set out in Basic Law, a de facto constitution. By eroding these freedoms, together with the concepts of self-determination and self-governance, the proposed new security law would be a clear violation of the ‘one country, two systems’ principle, which was underpinned by the joint declaration agreed by the UK and China pre-1997.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently said that, “Britain will not walk away from the people of Hong Kong.” In further comments he stressed that the independence of both the people and press of the former colony must not be put into question: “Hong Kong succeeds because its people are free.” If the security bill passes, it is the UK’s legal right, which was established under the joint declaration of 1984, to take action and hold China accountable. In a joint statement with the UK, the US, Australia and Canada have warned China for being in “direct conflict with its international obligations.”

The question is, if Johnson lives up to his commitment to “honour our obligations and provide an alternative,” what does this involve in practice? 

One way in which this could be achieved would be to allow Hong Kong citizens and residents to be given British national overseas (BNO) passports, a stepping-stone to full British citizenship, and would facilitate residency in the UK. Up to 2 ½ million Hong Kongers could be eligible for the  passport. Senior members of the cabinet such as the foreign sectary Dominic Raab have advocated the suggested proposal outlined by the government along with the last British governor of Hong Kong, Lord Patten, who said the offer of support from the UK government was “morally and politically right.” 

The Hong Kong pro-democracy activists, meanwhile, have urged Downing Street to be more specific about the terms of the proposal.

It’s not the first time that the UK government has discussed the idea of resettling millions of Hong Kongers. Believe it or not, a 1983 file reveals proposals for a new city state between Coleraine and Derry, entitled ‘The Replantation of N. Ireland from Hong Kong’. A Foreign Office official promised to give the “important considerations” of the paper “careful thought.” It is not clear, however, exactly how seriously the plan was treated.

Fast-forward nearly four decades and there are still a number of potential challenges over any proposals that would allow mass resettlement. Firstly, the very people who would be targeted by the proposed new security legislation – the young anti-mainland protesters who have been getting into confrontations with police for months – are not likely to be eligible for the BNO because of their age (anyone born post-1997 in Hong Kong would be excluded). Furthermore, though the BNO gives the passport holder the right to visit the UK for up to a year potentially, it has not been established what benefits the extension might bring to those who currently hold a passport and those who are applying for one now. 

The Chinese government has firmly opposed the proposal as a violation of the handover settlement, which asserts that BNO passport holders do not enjoy UK residency. Indeed, China has repeatedly warned Britain to stay out of its affairs in Hong Kong as they see the issue as being one within the context of an internal policy change. The Chinese ambassador to the UK, Liu Xiaoming, previously accused some British politicians of viewing Hong Kong “as part of the British Empire.” 

In Northern Ireland we’re all too familiar with the effect of complex histories and their enduring consequences. Indeed, we’re well aware of recent concerns that the UK government has failed to uphold provisions of the Good Friday Agreement, an international treaty it signed a year after Hong Kong’s handover in 1998. 

Just as the UK is obliged to uphold its obligations to the Good Friday Agreement, so too must it live up to its responsibilities as China attempts to tighten its grip on Hong Kong. 

You might also enjoy these recent articles on Northern Slant: