On July 22, the UK Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee began an inquiry into Britain's relations with Hong Kong. It will conclude in October. The committee said in a press release: "As co-signatory of the Joint Declaration, the UK retains an enduring commitment to Hong Kong following the transfer of sovereignty in 1997". Since then, the UK foreign secretary presents a six-monthly report to Parliament concerning the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The committee noted that the UK has had strong, long standing links with Hong Kong. Britain enjoys regular exchanges with the city on policy issues "including global economic development, climate change, financial services regulation, legal and judicial cooperation, and religious and social development".

The committee noted two interrelated issues in the inquiry. One is "the UK's position regarding progress on political and constitutional reform in Hong Kong as it moves toward universal suffrage, taking note of the wider context of social and economic development in Hong Kong" and the other is "the UK's presence and its ongoing interests in Hong Kong, including the prospects for trade, business, and cultural exchange". This means London has to keep a balance between asserting itself over Hong Kong's constitutional reforms and maintaining its long-term economic interests in the city. It is particularly important that the UK handles its bilateral relationship with China with the utmost care in this regard. This is because Hong Kong is now a special administrative region (SAR) of China. Therefore, when Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong, recently went out of his way to praise Hong Kong's opposition camp in interviews and articles, he did so while 10 Downing Street remained silent.

Nevertheless, in a free society with different political parties, British politicians have always held different opinions on various issues including foreign affairs. The current UK government is a coalition. Its Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, recently criticized Prime Minister David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, for failing to back Hong Kong's opposition demands for "genuine universal suffrage".

In the British media, there are also voices supporting Hong Kong's opposition politicians. The Economist, an influential weekly magazine, accused Britain of betraying Hong Kong in its July 19 editorial. It argued that it was time for Britain to rediscover its moral compass and confront China over Hong Kong. In keeping with the current Western intellectual tradition of emphasizing political correctness over economic and other issues, the editorial gave a rather negative assessment of Premier Li Keqiang's recent visit to Britain, where Beijing and London signed trade and business deals worth 14 billion pounds ($24 billion). "The consequences of that pact are now becoming clear," the editorial asserted. "This month the British foreign secretary issued the latest of his twice-yearly reports on Hong Kong. He noted that some in Hong Kong had said that the white paper threatened the city's autonomy. But it did not contain a word of criticism for the document itself, nor for the government in Beijing."

All those comments and criticisms are completely wrong. Firstly, they are based on the false assumption that Beijing is reneging on the promise of "One Country, Two Systems". The white paper on the implementation of the "One Country, Two Systems" policy in Hong Kong clearly outlined the basic guidelines for the HKSAR. Chairman of the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) Zhang Dejiang reaffirmed this in Shenzhen at a meeting with Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying on July 19. Zhang said that the central government would resolutely maintain these policies for Hong Kong.

Secondly, it is in Britain's best interests that the "Occupy Central" campaign is constrained and Hong Kong's constitutional reform progresses in accordance with the Basic Law and the NPCSC's decisions. For example, both HSBC and Standard Chartered Bank are controlled by British stakeholders. If Central - Hong Kong's international finance hub - is paralyzed then two of Hong Kong's main issuers of bank notes will likely be hurt most. If the SAR's financial operations were seriously disrupted its economy could be affected for months - if not years. British businesses in Hong Kong - whose total investments in the SAR are second only to their local Chinese counterparts' - would suffer huge, potentially fatal, losses.

Moreover, if Britain were to meddle in Hong Kong affairs by supporting the opposition in its attempt to derail the SAR's constitutional development, its relationship with China would be the first to deteriorate. Two years ago, David Cameron received the Dalai Lama in London. In response, Beijing shut its doors to British government leaders and business until later in 2013, when Cameron visited China. London understands that mutual respect is the first step toward lasting economic cooperation and growing Sino-British bilateral trade.

On July 25, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry expressed Beijing's strong opposition to the British Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee's recent interference in Hong Kong's constitutional reforms. People who want to maintain their interests in Hong Kong surely realize that jeopardizing Sino-British relations over the city's internal matters would be a counterproductive, even reckless move.

The author is a veteran current affairs commentator.

(HK Edition 07/30/2014 page9)