This article is a contribution from James Le Grice, of our network partner Insight Public Affairs, based in London. Find more about them at http://insightpublicaffairs.com/

“Hong Kong will never have to walk alone.” Thus said Prime Minister John Major in the last visit to Hong Kong by a British leader before the colony was returned to Chinese rule in 1997. Referring to the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, which ensured Hong Kong’s autonomy over its social, economic and legal systems, Major promised that Britain would “pursue every legal and other avenue available” if China failed to uphold the agreement.

Eighteen years after this speech was made, tens of thousands of Hong Kong citizens have taken to the streets, defying tear gas and police batons in a month-long protest against Beijing’s plan to vet the candidates for Hong Kong’s leadership election in 2017. Protestors argue that the decision is an attempt to claw back Hong Kong’s unique freedoms and tighten the Communist Party’s control over the island. Beijing argues that the protestors are unpatriotic puppets of “hostile foreign forces.”

Yet, as far as Britain is concerned, Hong Kong is most certainly walking alone. The UK Government has shown very little interest in the pro-democracy uprising save for the occasional brief statement from a junior Foreign Office minister, or non-committal comments of “concern” from Prime Minister David Cameron and his Deputy Nick Clegg. This relative silence led Anson Chen, deputy to the last British governor of Hong Kong, to accuse Britain of abandoning its “moral and legal responsibility” and reneging on its promise to hold China to the 1984 Joint-Declaration.

Britain’s silence reflects a somewhat different pledge made by Tony Blair on the eve of the handover ceremony in 1997.

This article is a contribution from James Le Grice, of our network partner Insight Public Affairs, based in London. Find more about them at http://insightpublicaffairs.com/

“Hong Kong will never have to walk alone.” Thus said Prime Minister John Major in the last visit to Hong Kong by a British leader before the colony was returned to Chinese rule in 1997. Referring to the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, which ensured Hong Kong’s autonomy over its social, economic and legal systems, Major promised that Britain would “pursue every legal and other avenue available” if China failed to uphold the agreement.

Eighteen years after this speech was made, tens of thousands of Hong Kong citizens have taken to the streets, defying tear gas and police batons in a month-long protest against Beijing’s plan to vet the candidates for Hong Kong’s leadership election in 2017. Protestors argue that the decision is an attempt to claw back Hong Kong’s unique freedoms and tighten the Communist Party’s control over the island. Beijing argues that the protestors are unpatriotic puppets of “hostile foreign forces.”

Yet, as far as Britain is concerned, Hong Kong is most certainly walking alone. The UK Government has shown very little interest in the pro-democracy uprising save for the occasional brief statement from a junior Foreign Office minister, or non-committal comments of “concern” from Prime Minister David Cameron and his Deputy Nick Clegg. This relative silence led Anson Chen, deputy to the last British governor of Hong Kong, to accuse Britain of abandoning its “moral and legal responsibility” and reneging on its promise to hold China to the 1984 Joint-Declaration.

Britain’s silence reflects a somewhat different pledge made by Tony Blair on the eve of the handover ceremony in 1997. This was to put the “battles and struggles of the past behind us” and open up a new chapter of Chinese-British relations “based on the 21st century.” The 21st Century thus far has seen China emerge as the world’s fastest growing economy, and the present the UK Government made closer trade with China one of its top foreign policy priorities when it was elected in 2010.

In this year alone, Britain and China set a target for bilateral trade of $100 billion by the end of 2015, and China announced that it would invest $169 billion in UK infrastructure between 2014 and 2025. In particular, China is set to invest in a nuclear power plant and in a new high-speed rail line whose rising costs have become a highly divisive political topic. Furthermore, the British Government announced last July its intention to streamline the visa application process for Chinese visitors, enabling visas to be granted in 24 hours. The announcement followed a report by Barclays which found that spending by Chinese tourists in Britain is expected to rise to over 1 billion pounds by 2017. This is an increase of 84 per cent on 2013 levels.

When the present British Government has waded into Chinese internal affairs, the result has not been favourable. For example, in 2012 David Cameron defied a request from Beijing not to meet with the Dalai Lama. This resulted in a one-year freeze in relations between Britain and China, with Beijing suspending ministerial contact and rebuffing two attempts by the Prime Minister to visit China. While Britain never acquiesced to China’s demand that it apologise for the meeting with the Dalai Lama, normal relations were restored only after Britain’s foreign secretary assured his Chinese counterpart that Britain does not support Tibetan independence and that it would “properly handle such issues on the basis of respecting China’s concerns.”

There are many who would interpret Britain’s 21st century relationship with China and its silence over the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong as emblematic of a faded imperial power. This view, however, misunderstands the priorities that Britain maintained as a colonial power, particularly in regard to Hong Kong. British foreign policy has traditionally been far more concerned with maintaining stability and a favourable status quo than embarking on ideological campaigns abroad. In the 156 years that Britain ruled Hong Kong, it did not introduce full western-style democracy in the colony. The governor was appointed in London, not elected by the local population.

Likewise, full democracy was not something that Britain pushed for in the negotiations leading to the 1984 agreement, which states that the Chief Executive of Hong Kong will be “appointed by the central people’s government on the basis of elections or consultations to be held locally.” Britain’s priority was that Hong Kong maintained its economic and judiciary freedoms under Chinese rule, freedoms that would ensure maintenance of a stable and favourable status quo for British trade in Hong Kong.

Beijing’s plan to vet the candidates for the 2017 Hong Kong leadership election does not therefore threaten Britain’s priorities in the former colony. And hence, the British Government has been reluctant to endanger its priorities with mainland China by becoming too vocal on the pro-democracy protests.

This is not to say that Britain will not take a firmer stance should the situation escalate. It was also a priority of the present Government to forge greater trading relations with Russia, but this has not stopped David Cameron from leading Europe in calls for sanctions against Moscow over its actions in Ukraine. Hong Kong 2014 is not Tiananmen Square 1989, but should the situation begin to resemble the latter, the evidence suggests that Britain will not allow Hong Kong to “walk alone,” as John Major once promised.