There is no excuse for UK inaction on Hong Kong sanctions

When it comes to sanctioning Carrie Lam and Hong Kong officials, the UK has the tools and evidence at its disposal

As FCDO Asia Minister, Nigel Adams MP, rose to wrap up last week’s debate on Hong Kong in the UK Parliament, he rolled out the common line that the Government would not speculate or be drawn on the prospect of including Hong Kong officials under the UK’s Magnitsky Global Sanctions Regime.

Much to the chagrin of Members of Parliament from all sides who are unified on the question of sanctioning Hong Kong officials, this pre-scripted line drafted by officials has now been used in every debate since the introduction of the National Security Law last July. Its overuse has gotten to the point where Members of Parliament are now pre-empting the minister out of sheer frustration, this was epitomised by the speech of the SNP Foreign Affairs Spokesman, Alyn Smith MP, who said that “we are not looking for speculation; we are looking for announcements”.

To an outside observer who recognises the UK’s legal, historic, and moral obligation to Hong Kong, this dance between speculation and inaction, is a distraction that the UK can ill-afford. Each passing day that the UK fails to sanction those officials responsible for the implementation of the National Security Law, Beijing introduces even more draconian measures as it seeks to crackdown on the pro-democracy movement. Meanwhile the resolve of key allies, who would stand ready to sanction Hong Kong officials with the UK, weakens.

Some have speculated that the issue is a legal one. They claim that the UK is not able to use the sanctions regime it has in place to target Carrie Lam and other Hong Kong officials responsible for dismantling the city’s autonomy, as their actions do not go far enough in terms of human rights violations.

This argument is a deeply flawed one, particularly when one considers how proactive the Government has been when it comes to sanctioning Belarussian and Myanmar officials for the crackdown on their respective pro-democracy protest movements.

Under the UK’s Global Human Rights Sanctions regime, Ministers can consider the inclusion of officials if there is evidence of slavery, the death penalty, or torture and mistreatment. In the case of Hong Kong, the Government should investigate further the recent reports by the UK consulate that at least four British nationals had been tortured or mistreated in detention since the start of the anti-Extradition Bill protests in June 2019. This would be the most likely route to including Hong Kong officials under the current Magnitsky sanctions regime.

However the UK does have other options. In particular it should consider introducing a country specific sanctions lists. This is what happened recently in the cases of Myanmar, Belarus, and Russia, where the Government announced bespoke country specific lists sanctioning officials guilty of violently suppressing pro-democracy protests, and in Russia’s case poisoning Alexi Navalny.  

Given the US Government’s decision to make fighting kleptocracy a central plank of its foreign policy, Ministers could even look at the new powers they have accrued under the Global Anti-Corruption Sanctions Regime to combat serious corruption.

Hong Kong has long had a reputation for hiding the wealth of red princelings far away from the reaches of party officials and the city’s opaque system of government has allowed, first local tycoons, and now mainland state-owned enterprises to buy access and gain the bulk of the city’s sizeable infrastructure contracts.

This is not far from the kind of state capture that we witnessed by the Gupta brothers of the Zuma Government in South Africa, who were recently included under the UK’s Global Anti-Corruption Sanctions regime for their ‘involvement in serious corruption in South Africa’.

Of course, the Gupta brothers were not always the international pariahs they are today. There was a time where they boasted the support of the British elite and had the accounting firms KPMG and McKinsey, as well as the British PR firm Bell Pottinger on their payroll.

The truth is that when it comes to Hong Kong officials, many of whom have British passports through their families and financial links to the UK, Magnitsky sanctions would be far more effective than they have been against other foreign officials. The potential for effectiveness may actually undergird the problem. The linkages mean that far too many in the British elite continue to be deeply embedded in the Hong Kong Government and financially dependent on the city for their fortunes.

One only needs to look at the swiftness of the old colonial houses Jardine Matheson and the Swire Group to publicly endorsing the National Security Law or the behaviour of HSBC which has frozen the assets of pro-democracy activists, to see the ability of Beijing to leverage financial dependence for political support.

Many of the British-based companies who have publicly backed Beijing’s crackdown not only face no repercussions from the UK Government, but continue to have private access and offer advice to ministers in the Treasury, FCDO, BEIS, and the Department of International Trade about the UK’s trading relationship with China.

The way forward for the UK finally sanctioning Hong Kong officials is fraught with government intrigue, obfuscation, and the wider questions of the UK’s economic relationship with China. Yet, observing the unity across parliament on this topic and the growing public mistrust of the Chinese state this is an issue that can be deferred but not postponed indefinitely.

Ministers have the tools available to sanction Hong Kong officials. There is evidence of human rights violations that prove the situation in Hong Kong meets the necessary standards. The financial and personal links of Hong Kong officials to the UK proves beyond doubt that sanctions would be effective. The question remains when will the UK Government finally act? 

Sam Goodman, Senior Policy Advisor at Hong Kong Watch