The Guardian view on Hong Kong: a historical obligation

Despite a police ban, and in the shadow of the pending national security law which Beijing is imposing, Hong Kong residents gathered on Thursday night to mourn the bloody 1989 crackdown on Tiananmen Square’s pro-democracy protesters. The massacre fuelled a passionate campaign to grant Hong Kong’s residents British citizenship, doomed by opposition to increased immigration. Most were instead granted the right to the British National Overseas passport, or BN(O), which carries no right of abode and was soon nicknamed “Britain says No”. It left the region with little expectation of support from its former coloniser as Beijing tightened its hold, breaching promises that the city could maintain its freedoms until 2047.

In Hong Kong about 350,000 residents hold BN(O) passports, which allow them to remain in the UK, while another 2.5 million are eligible for them. Now the prime minister has promised that if – in reality, when – the Chinese government imposes a draconian national security law, Britain will allow any holder to come to the UK for a renewable period of 12 months and to work here, potentially placing them on a route to citizenship. “We will honour our obligations,” he wrote in an article for the Times.

This is a welcome announcement, given Britain’s previous failure, and surprising rhetoric from a party with such a shameful record on immigration. It may owe something to the fact that Hongkongers, many of them highly skilled, English-speaking and entrepreneurial, are more likely than others to be regarded by the right as “good” immigrants who may be useful in post-Brexit Britain. (Strikingly, the Spectator this week called for full citizenship to be granted).

But campaigners say they need to see the detail. Like others, BN(O) passport holders can already work here if an employer sponsors their visa; are they gaining new working rights? As others have found, there are plenty of obstacles and toll charges on the path to citizenship, including thousands of pounds in application fees. And the government’s handling of the Dubs amendment to bring unaccompanied refugee children to the UK has shown that its promises cannot be counted upon.

In reality, many in Hong Kong will want to remain there, despite their fears about China’s tightened grip. Others will not be helped by this scheme: the right to a BN(O) passport cannot be inherited, and no one born after 1997 is eligible – ruling out many young protesters.

While the government’s promise is welcome, it is too vague and limited. It must also be accompanied by strong and coordinated international efforts to support those who will remain in the city, by choice or because they are among the millions not covered by this offer: “They only offer us an exit, and do not offer to stand by us in our fight for Hong Kong,” said the veteran activist Lee Cheuk-yan.

With the US, Australia and others taking a tougher line towards China, Britain has finally begun to harden its previously feeble response to clear breaches of the Sino-British joint declaration, which laid out Hong Kong’s future. Seven former British foreign secretaries have called for the UK to lead the international response to the security law. They are right to do so. Britain abandoned its responsibilities to Hong Kong’s people before. It must not do so again.