Grenville Cross

Opinion | Why Britain’s foreign secretary is no friend to Hong Kong and the rule of law

If Dominic Raab is genuinely concerned about the national security law for Hong Kong, he should be encouraging British judges to remain on the city’s Court of Final Appeal so they can help ensure just outcomes

Reading Time:3 minutes

Why you can trust SCMP

Britain’s Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab is asking whether it is appropriate for British judges to continue to sit on Hong Kong’s highest court. Photo: Reuters

Grenville Cross

Published: 6:45pm, 1 Dec 2020Updated: 6:48pm, 1 Dec 2020

Since 1997, the British foreign secretary has presented a report on Hong Kong to Parliament every six months. Initially, these reports were reasoned and constructive, and generally supportive of the “one country, two systems” paradigm.

When problems arose, they were realistically assessed, and placed in context. With the growth, however, of anti-China sentiment in the West, this balance has disappeared and the reports have become increasingly tendentious and unreliable.

On November 23, British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab issued a report which is far removed from reality. Whether this was done to pacify hardliners in his own party, or to gratify his opposite number in the US, Mike Pompeo, is anybody’s guess, but it certainly was not designed to benefit Hong Kong.

Once again, Raab trotted out the hoary old myth that the recently enacted national security law was “imposed on Hong Kong … in clear breach of the Joint Declaration”. However, as the Joint Declaration made clear, “defence affairs” are outside Hong Kong’s “high degree of autonomy”, and this is now enshrined in the Basic Law.

The Joint Declaration said nothing whatsoever about national security, which is unsurprising as it involves China’s own defence interests. Indeed, Britain never proposed, and China never agreed, that Hong Kong would be denied the laws required to defend itself from subversive activities or terrorism, or to protect the nation.

Under China’s constitution, national security is always a matter for the country as a whole, just as it is in Britain, and any attempt to rewrite history is readily foiled by the fine print of the Joint Declaration itself.