But these provisions only fulfil the International Convent because those who drafted it naively assumed that a country which granted citizenship would also grant other rights, specifically the right of abode. For statelessness is not avoided by giving people passports and names. If it were that easy, there would be no stateless people in the world. Real statelessness is avoided by giving people an effective nationality with rights, responsibilities and above all a place to belong. Neither British National (Overseas) nor British Overseas citizenship carries any right of abode or any right to pass citizenship on to children. They are merely travel documents: the Chinese memorandum on nationality appended to the Agreement does not even call British National (Overseas) a status; it makes it clear that it is merely a temporary travel document facility which it is allowing to a small group of Chinese nationals. If it were a genuine citizenship, Chinese nationals would not be able to hold it, as China does not allow dual nationality.
The practical problems British Nationals (Overseas) will face make the precariousness of their status very clear. Their passports may not on their own be enough to secure them entry to other countries: they will not show any right of abode, as Britain has no power to promise that after 1997, so they will have to carry their Chinese-issued identity cards if they need to prove to foreign authorities that they have the right to live somewhere. Their children born abroad will have no right of abode anywhere, unless and until they have lived for seven years in Hong Kong, when the Chinese will grant them right of abode there under the Agreement.
It is only Britain which seeks to elevate this vestigial and transitional status into a nationality as a defence against accusations of statelessness. In reality, giving people passports and names is about as effective a remedy against statelessness as airlifting luncheon vouchers to Ethiopia.
THE OBJECTIONS
The British authorities have produced many arguments against granting effective citizenship to minorities in Hong Kong.
Firstly, it is argued that they should not expect right of abode in Britain, as they have never had that right since 1962. This ignores the fact that their British nationality at least gave them the right to live in a country for which Britain was responsible, and to pass on that status to
22
Page 45Page 46
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.