Ignore the noise, the West is surrendering Hong Kong

We've seen the statements. One, from the US, UK, Australia and Canada, says that China's decision to directly impose a new security law on Hong Kong will undermine the principle of 'one country, two systems'. This idea, whereby Hong Kong is recognised as a part of China but still retains a large degree of autonomy from Beijing's laws and repression, has been fundamental to the status of Hong Kong since it was handed over by the UK in 1997. The other statement, from the European Union, is softer, expressing concern but not ruling out working with China to resolve differences that are anything but new.

Since then, we've been treated to the spectacle of people applauding the strength of the US-led grouping while condemning the weakness of the EU's position. Certainly there's no doubt that the EU's statement failed to live up to any expectations and that any belief in engagement with China over this issue is deeply flawed, but is the America version really so different? Beneath the arguments about who is a leading actor in foreign policy, there are two simple truths. The first is that only the US and the EU have the economic strength to seriously hurt and deter China. The second is that neither of these actors is willing to pay the price for actually achieving that objective.  

Now of course, there have been some positive actions. The UK's decision to open up a visa option and a pathway to citizenship to those Hong Kongers who have the right to British National Overseas passports is a welcome move (particularly in comparison to the reluctance to welcome, say, Syrian refugees). And the United States' shift towards ending the special trade preferences given to Hong Kong is also largely good news, as the territory does act as a gateway for economic investment into mainland China. 

But the impact of both of these policies is limited. In the end, they are targetted more at Hong Kong than at China overall, and so it is Hong Kong which will feel the greatest force of these decisions. One will empty Hong Kong of some of its most mobile people. The other will weaken Hong Kong's economy. But will either deter China from taking full control over the city? It seems unlikely.

And so when you strip back the rhetoric and examine the substance the biggest difference between the EU and US position is that the EU is more honest: 'we don't like what China is doing but we think the cost of stopping them is too high'. Secretly, this is the policy everywhere round the world. While some British writers triumphantly hail the arrival of thousands of Hong Kongers to the UK (a slightly rash assumption given the closer proximity of Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, the US and Canada), the reality is that this is a Dunkirk-like retreat, making the best of defeat. And just like Dunkirk, we are dressing it up as victory, obscuring our ability to see the consequences of this moment.

And if this new security law comes to pass it will indeed be a significant moment. China has been flexing its muscles for years now. It doesn't harbour the kind of global ambitions that came before the most destructive conflicts of the past but it does aspire to be a master in its region. To this end, it continues to encroach on disputed islands in the South China Sea, seeks to promote unification with Taiwan, and has recently been escalating tensions on the border with India. With its claims to land and sea accomplished, China would continue to export its model to other nearby countries, isolating liberal democracies in the region and propping up autocracies (while at the same time trapping them in debt, giving Beijing leverage and control). The end result would be an expanded China, violently repressing and homogenising its population, with a buffer wall of compliant states to protect it. It pushes simultaneously on all fronts but most of its ventures have failed to deliver any results. Putting Hong Kong fully under the boot of Beijing's censors and security forces would be a clear victory and an undisputed step forward in their strategy. It would be a marker in the growth of China's power.

All this is why the West must take action which actually challenges China's interests. China today is playing a game of territorial recognition. It bets that, having accepted 'one country, two systems', the West won't have the guts to go back on 'one country', even as Beijing tears down 'two systems'. It is therefore imperative to immediately show them they are wrong. Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, along with allied South Korea and Japan, should all make it clear that until China reverses course, not only do they not recognise Hong Kong as a part of China but that they will move towards recognising Taiwan as an independent state. China needs to be made to believe that its aim of a larger, unified state, will only happen within the limits of the liberal international system. At the same time, the US should cancel the 'phase 1' trade deal recently agreed with China and the EU should cancel negotiations on the investment treaty.

From here, if China continues to push on undeterred, the next step would be to directly target China's economy - either with sanctions or by suspending WTO terms. Some will baulk at this point and likely many politicians in the world's leading democracies will feel the same. And it's true that this course of action would cause economic damage to both sides. But this is the point. No effective method of containment is free. Where thinking in the West goes off course is when we start to imagine that the world's democratic alliance isn't strong enough to take on China in this scenario. China's growth has been immense but we should not overestimate it. We are so aware of our own weaknesses that we often blind ourselves to China's still considerable levels of poverty and the massive weaknesses inside its state-run economy.

It will not be easy to take such a bold step but it is necessary if we are serious about stopping China from becoming a power that it can directly hurt our interests and whereby we can only fight back with military means. We need to take decisive action, even risk an over-reaction, now so that we don't have to pay the price later. Alternatively, we should rip up our public statements of condemnation and commitment to Hong Kong's autonomy because they are not worth the paper they are written on.

Image via Flickr