（此文章為中文譯文，文章最後附上英文原文。）
英國各大政黨在兩週前發布政綱。然而，大部分英國選民其實早已決定投票意向，政綱似乎不會影響今次選舉結果。選民大多透過媒體了解政綱概要，並不清楚宣言內針對不同議題的詳細政策。
但對非政府組織、慈善機構、人權組織和其他倡議組織而言，雖然最終只有一黨會勝選，政綱依然有其作用。我們可以透過政綱了解各黨的執政願景和優次，以及他們就不同議題和社會問題上的立場。
香港監察作為無黨派傾向的慈善機構，將於以下分析各黨政綱中對中國、香港關係的看法，以及他們對超過21萬居英的BNO簽證持有者作出什麼承諾。
工黨
根據民調，工黨極有可能贏得這次選舉，英國社會也因此而非常關注工黨的政綱——《改變 Change》。
工黨在不同文章及演講中多次提及其外交政策大綱，不論是影子外交大臣林偉德 David Lammy 於 Foreign Affairs 雜誌上刊登的《為進步現實主義進一言》或影子財政大臣 Rachel Reeves 針對「安全經濟 (securonomics)」的演講，皆清楚表明工黨的外交方針。因此，對關注英國外交事務者而言，工黨政綱《改變》將不會就對中、港政策表達嶄新的見解。
工黨承諾，若當選將會重新全面審視中英雙方關係，並表示英國對中關係上，會「盡所能地合作，視所需來競爭，應必要情況而挑戰」。這項承諾體現了Lammy「進步現實主義」的想法，認知到在捍衛自由民主的同時，必須要在全球議題上與中國合作。然而這樣的政策說來容易，執行起來卻困難。
這策略的務實值得讚揚。然而，工黨一方面批評現屆保守黨政府對中政策「反覆無常」，工黨若於七月四日當選卻將可能面臨一樣的指責。權因中英關係複雜、問題繁瑣，對中政策很難既合作，又挑戰，且維持政策的一貫性。至於工黨將如何執行針對中政策與承諾，目前仍有待進一步說明。
以香港為例，工黨承諾會「與香港人站在同一陣線」，但並沒有保證BNO簽證會持續開放。我認為這樣的承諾並不足夠，工黨應全力支持延續BNO簽證計劃，並替滯留在香港的BNO簽證持有者爭取權益。
工黨的難民政策也處處令人懷疑。例如，工黨承諾將會加速遣返申請庇護失敗的難民回到安全的國家。然而有許多年輕香港人因「香港是個安全國家」一由而庇護申請被拒絕，這顯示了英國政府人員有時並沒有意識到香港法治的瓦解對香港抗爭者帶來的威脅。
如果工黨能縮短處理政治庇護申請的過程，實為好事一樁。但工黨應該確保加速遣返難民的政策不會危及到香港難民的人身安全。
保守黨
保守黨在首相 Boris Johnson 的領導下於 2020 年推動了BNO簽證方案，並在這次選舉宣言中承諾會持續開放BNO簽證。其宣言也針對幾項特定議題提出了政策，包括對中國電動車立定新法案，然而這並不包括像歐盟一樣對中國電動車納稅。宣言中也並未提及首相Rishi Sunak先前關閉所有在英孔子學院的保證。
保守黨在宣言中承諾會對侵犯人權的他國政府官員進行經濟制裁，當中包括香港官員。香港監察從2020年開始要求保守黨政府對香港特首李加超進行制裁，但政府並未採取任何行動，宣言中的承諾似乎為時已晚。
自由民主黨
自由民主黨黨魁戴宏 Ed Davey 這次的競選活動都非常滑稽可笑，例如跳進Windermere 湖或是邊搭雲霄飛車邊推廣政策，但目前尚未見其跳進南海又或揮舞玩具鐵鎚擊破長城以推廣自民黨的外交政策。
自由民主黨一向相當支持香港，並在這次的選舉宣言中承諾會持續資助、改善BNO簽證方案，令其適用於更多香港人。自由民主黨也保證會制裁侵犯人權的他國政府官員、禁止新疆進口並對中國官員所有的英國財產及房地產進行審計。
上述政策看似對捍衛香港人及人權的立場強硬，但有別於工黨與保黨，自由民主黨的當選機率較小因此能夠更大膽的給予承諾。自由民主黨是否真的會盡力推動這些政策，唯有在選舉結束之後才能一見真章。
結論
外交政策或國際問題在英國選舉中，向來不是政黨、民眾最在乎的議題。不論最終哪一政黨贏得這次選舉，對一般英國選民來說香港、中國或BNO簽證都不會是影響其決定的關鍵。選民多半更在意各政黨能夠為自己日常生活或所居住的城鎮、鄉里帶來什麼樣的進步。
話雖如此，在各個選舉宣言中仍可以看到各黨對中國、香港的立場與策略。整體而言，各黨宣言都透露著英國意識到中國對西方民主社會經濟與國家安全上帶來的威脅。政綱多討論如何在解決如氣候變遷或科技改變等國際問題上與中國合作，同時反對中國侵犯人權的行為。
雖然我們仍然需要針對香港議題更詳細且有力的政策，香港監察認為每個政黨皆在選舉宣言中展現了對地緣政治的基本瞭解。
Thomas Benson
香港監察 研究及政策政策顧問 (UK & BNO)
（棱角和 Vote for Hong Kong 合作邀請在英香港倡議者評論各大政黨的選舉政綱，冀能藉此激起港人社群討論各政策範疇。各作者文章內容不代表棱角或 Vote for Hong Kong 立場。）
英文原文：
UK Election Manifestos: Hong Kong Watch Perspective
Thomas Benson is Research and Policy Advisor (UK & BNO) at Hong Kong Watch
With the UK public headed to the polls in under three weeks, it’s likely that the launch of the competing political parties’ manifestos will not turn the dial too much. Many voters – perhaps most – have already decided where their inclinations lie. The publication of the manifestos this past week is unlikely to be decisive in the overall course of the election, especially as only a very small proportion of the electorate will read them in full.
With that said, for NGOs, human rights organisations, charities, and other groups that work in and around Westminster, the manifestos do serve a useful purpose. They help to clarify how the parties see their priorities and objectives. While only one party will likely have the mandate to put its manifesto into practice, they are as much a guide to the ideas and interests of the opposition as to the new occupants of No. 10.
For Hong Kong Watch, a non-partisan charity with patrons from all three major parties and consistent support from some of the smaller parties as well, manifesto season is a good time to look for signals about how each party thinks about its relationship with China and Hong Kong, as well as its obligations to the 210,000+ British National (Overseas) visa holders from Hong Kong who have started new lives in the UK since 2021.
Labour
With polling indicating that the Labour Party are very likely to form the next government, their 2024 manifesto – titled simply ‘Change’ – has been hotly anticipated (by the not particularly high standards of party manifestos, at least).
The broad contours of Labour’s foreign policy have already been outlined in speeches and articles drafted by Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy, most notably in Lammy’s essay in Foreign Affairs, ‘The Case for Progressive Realism’. To those who follow such things, ‘Change’ thus contains few surprises on China and Hong Kong.
Labour have pledged an audit of the UK-China bilateral and say, on China, the UK ‘will cooperate where we can, compete where we need to, and challenge where we must’. This is an encapsulation of Lammy’s conception of ‘progressive realism’, a recognition of the need to defend democratic values while cooperating on global issues such as climate change.
It’s a strategy commendable in its pragmatism. However, while the Labour manifesto criticises Conservative ‘inconsistency’ over China, if Labour win on the 4th July, they may find themselves open to the same charge. Maintaining a consistent line between cooperating and challenging is a difficult proposition. More concrete details of Labour’s preferred line will hopefully arise soon into any new government term.
The example of Hong Kong illustrates this challenge. Labour pledge to ‘stand with and support’ Hong Kongers in the UK, though they don’t go so far as to pledge to keeping the BNO scheme open. I would have liked to have seen a bolder and more fleshed-out commitment to Hong Kongers beyond the UK, such as those BNO passport holders who have not yet left the city.
There are also potential concerns about Labour’s pledge to ‘speed[..] up returns to safe countries’ for rejected asylum seekers. Some young activists who have fled Hong Kong have had their applications for asylum rejected on the grounds that Hong Kong is not unsafe for them. This reflects a regrettable lack of understanding of the rapid degeneration of the rule of law in Hong Kong and the threat posed to those who oppose the regime.
It would undoubtedly be a good thing to put an end to the limbo of months or years spent waiting for decisions on asylum applications. But Labour should ensure that the asylum applications of young Hong Kong activists are not hastily rejected in the name of speeding up returns.
Conservatives
The Conservatives introduced the BNO scheme under Boris Johnson in 2020, and understandably, perhaps, take a slightly stronger line on BNO issues. It’s encouraging to see the Conservative manifesto make an explicit commitment to ‘maintaining’ the BNO scheme, for the benefit of those who would like to leave Hong Kong, but have not been able to so far.
The Conservatives manifesto is more forthcoming on specific issues relating to China, including potential action on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) and the placing of China in the enhanced tier of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme. However, the manifesto shies away from committing to tariffs on Chinese EVs, similar to the EU.
Notable by its absence from the manifesto, furthermore, are previous promises by Rishi Sunak, when running for the office of Prime Minister, to shut down Confucius Institutes in the UK.
I also couldn’t help but notice that the manifesto promises, ‘[i]n relation to China’, to use ‘asset freezes and travel bans’ on those involved in human rights abuses, explicitly including in Hong Kong. If that is the case, why has the Conservative government not issued sanctions against Chief Executive John Lee and other officials in Hong Kong?
Liberal Democrats
So far we have yet to see Sir Ed Davey fall into the South China Sea or demolish a jenga block replica of the Great Wall of China in order to promote the Liberal Democrats’ foreign policy vision. That said, there are still three weeks to go.
As their manifesto is keen to remind us, the Liberal Democrats have a proud record of standing up for Hong Kongers. With many target seats in BNO-heavy areas such as south-west London, it is perhaps not surprising that the Liberal Democrat manifesto features more explicit commitments to the BNO community, including extending BNO integration funding for Hong Kongers in the UK for the duration of the next Parliament. I was also pleased to see the Liberal Democrats commit to closing gaps in the BNO scheme, such as for those born before 1997 to BNO passport-holding parents, but who were not registered as children for BNO status themselves.
There are other commendable policy proposals, including use of Magnitsky sanctions against human rights abuses, an import ban on goods from Xinjiang, and an audit of UK-based assets owned by officials from China.
All of these are broadly welcome ideas. However, such commitments can be easy to make in opposition. With the Liberal Democrats poised to significantly increase their representation in Parliament, the real test of their commitment will come in how much energy they devote to promoting these ideas once the dust from the General Election has settled.
Conclusion
Regardless of which party wins the election, it is fair to say that this election will not be fought and won on Hong Kong, China, or the BNO scheme. Foreign policy and international issues are never at the forefront of a General Election campaign; voters are understandably focused on what the parties can do for them at home, in their neighbourhoods, and for the services they use every day.
Nevertheless, faint contours of the UK’s future relationship with China and Hong Kong can be discerned among these manifestos. On the whole, the manifestos speak to a wary realisation of the economic and security challenges posed by China to western democracies. There is little talk of pursuing ‘economic opportunities’ and much more concern about how to collectively manage the challenges of climate and technological change while standing up to China’s human rights abuses. While there will always be a need for more detail and stronger commitments, all the parties deserve commendation for recognising these basic realities of the geopolitical landscape.
