'UK Election Manifestos: Hong Kong Watch Perspective', Thomas Benson
With the UK public headed to the polls in under three weeks, it’s likely that the launch of the competing political parties’ manifestos will not turn the dial too much. Many voters – perhaps most – have already decided where their inclinations lie. The publication of the manifestos this past week is unlikely to be decisive in the overall course of the election, especially as only a very small proportion of the electorate will read them in full.
With that said, for NGOs, human rights organisations, charities, and other groups that work in and around Westminster, the manifestos do serve a useful purpose. They help to clarify how the parties see their priorities and objectives. While only one party will likely have the mandate to put its manifesto into practice, they are as much a guide to the ideas and interests of the opposition as to the new occupants of No. 10.
For Hong Kong Watch, a non-partisan charity with patrons from all three major parties and consistent support from some of the smaller parties as well, manifesto season is a good time to look for signals about how each party thinks about its relationship with China and Hong Kong, as well as its obligations to the 210,000+ British National (Overseas) visa holders from Hong Kong who have started new lives in the UK since 2021.
Labour
With polling indicating that the Labour Party are very likely to form the next government, their 2024 manifesto – titled simply ‘Change’ – has been hotly anticipated (by the not particularly high standards of party manifestos, at least).
The broad contours of Labour’s foreign policy have already been outlined in speeches and articles drafted by Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy, most notably in Lammy’s essay in Foreign Affairs, ‘The Case for Progressive Realism’. To those who follow such things, ‘Change’ thus contains few surprises on China and Hong Kong.
Labour have pledged an audit of the UK-China bilateral and say, on China, the UK ‘will cooperate where we can, compete where we need to, and challenge where we must’. This is an encapsulation of Lammy’s conception of ‘progressive realism’, a recognition of the need to defend democratic values while cooperating on global issues such as climate change.
It’s a strategy commendable in its pragmatism. However, while the Labour manifesto criticises Conservative ‘inconsistency’ over China, if Labour win on the 4th July, they may find themselves open to the same charge. Maintaining a consistent line between cooperating and challenging is a difficult proposition. More concrete details of Labour’s preferred line will hopefully arise soon into any new government term.
The example of Hong Kong illustrates this challenge. Labour pledge to ‘stand with and support’ Hong Kongers in the UK, though they don’t go so far as to pledge to keeping the BNO scheme open. I would have liked to have seen a bolder and more fleshed-out commitment to Hong Kongers beyond the UK, such as those BNO passport holders who have not yet left the city.
There are also potential concerns about Labour’s pledge to ‘speed[..] up returns to safe countries’ for rejected asylum seekers. Some young activists who have fled Hong Kong have had their applications for asylum rejected on the grounds that Hong Kong is not unsafe for them. This reflects a regrettable lack of understanding of the rapid degeneration of the rule of law in Hong Kong and the threat posed to those who oppose the regime.
It would undoubtedly be a good thing to put an end to the limbo of months or years spent waiting for decisions on asylum applications. But Labour should ensure that the asylum applications of young Hong Kong activists are not hastily rejected in the name of speeding up returns.
Conservatives
The Conservatives introduced the BNO scheme under Boris Johnson in 2020, and understandably, perhaps, take a slightly stronger line on BNO issues. It’s encouraging to see the Conservative manifesto make an explicit commitment to ‘maintaining’ the BNO scheme, for the benefit of those who would like to leave Hong Kong, but have not been able to so far.
The Conservatives manifesto is more forthcoming on specific issues relating to China, including potential action on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) and the placing of China in the enhanced tier of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme. However, the manifesto shies away from committing to tariffs on Chinese EVs, similar to the EU.
Notable by its absence from the manifesto, furthermore, are previous promises by Rishi Sunak, when running for the office of Prime Minister, to shut down Confucius Institutes in the UK.
I also couldn’t help but notice that the manifesto promises, ‘[i]n relation to China’, to use ‘asset freezes and travel bans’ on those involved in human rights abuses, explicitly including in Hong Kong. If that is the case, why has the Conservative government not issued sanctions against Chief Executive John Lee and other officials in Hong Kong?
Liberal Democrats
So far we have yet to see Sir Ed Davey fall into the South China Sea or demolish a jenga block replica of the Great Wall of China in order to promote the Liberal Democrats’ foreign policy vision. That said, there are still three weeks to go.
As their manifesto is keen to remind us, the Liberal Democrats have a proud record of standing up for Hong Kongers. With many target seats in BNO-heavy areas such as south-west London, it is perhaps not surprising that the Liberal Democrat manifesto features more explicit commitments to the BNO community, including extending BNO integration funding for Hong Kongers in the UK for the duration of the next Parliament. I was also pleased to see the Liberal Democrats commit to closing gaps in the BNO scheme, such as for those born before 1997 to BNO passport-holding parents, but who were not registered as children for BNO status themselves.
There are other commendable policy proposals, including use of Magnitsky sanctions against human rights abuses, an import ban on goods from Xinjiang, and an audit of UK-based assets owned by officials from China.
All of these are broadly welcome ideas. However, such commitments can be easy to make in opposition. With the Liberal Democrats poised to significantly increase their representation in Parliament, the real test of their commitment will come in how much energy they devote to promoting these ideas once the dust from the General Election has settled.
Conclusion
Regardless of which party wins the election, it is fair to say that this election will not be fought and won on Hong Kong, China, or the BNO scheme. Foreign policy and international issues are never at the forefront of a General Election campaign; voters are understandably focused on what the parties can do for them at home, in their neighbourhoods, and for the services they use every day.
Nevertheless, faint contours of the UK’s future relationship with China and Hong Kong can be discerned among these manifestos. On the whole, the manifestos speak to a wary realisation of the economic and security challenges posed by China to western democracies. There is little talk of pursuing ‘economic opportunities’ and much more concern about how to collectively manage the challenges of climate and technological change while standing up to China’s human rights abuses. While there will always be a need for more detail and stronger commitments, all the parties deserve commendation for recognising these basic realities of the geopolitical landscape.
This article was published in Points Media on 26 June 2024.