External forces, especially the United States and its Western allies, have always adopted a hostile attitude toward any national security legislation related to Hong Kong. Their officials, politicians, media, think tanks and non-governmental organizations almost without exception are hostile to any national security legislation related to Hong Kong, showing fierce opposition, harsh accusations and alarmism.
They claim that enacting a law to safeguard national security would violate “one country, two systems”, erode Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, trample on the city’s human rights, freedoms, and the rule of law, endanger the lives of residents and foreigners, and damage the business environment.
After the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress promulgated the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL) in June 2020, the US passed a series of laws in 2020, such as the Hong Kong Autonomy Act to “punish” Hong Kong. The US also targeted central government officials and Hong Kong SAR officials, imposed “sanctions” on them that were inconsistent with international law, and encouraged Western capital, companies and talent to withdraw from Hong Kong. This year, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government initiated local legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law, and, as expected, strident and unfair criticism from the US and the West has poured in. We cannot rule out the possibility that they will impose or threaten to impose a new round of “sanctions” on officials, legislators and other relevant people responsible for the legislative work.
The National Security Law for Hong Kong only prohibits four categories of crimes, and the proposed Article 23 legislation only targets five categories of offenses; their severity is substantially lower than those in the US and the West. Hence, the US and the West should have no reason to oppose Hong Kong’s national security legislation. Otherwise, they would betray and unveil double standards, extreme hypocrisy, unreasonableness and arrogance.
On the surface, the vehement reactions of the US and the West to Hong Kong’s Article 23 legislation are bizarre, unfathomable and unreasonable.
READ MORE: NPC spokesperson affirms support for HK's Article 23
First, unexceptionally, all sovereign countries have laws to protect national security. For a long time, the US and the West have had draconian laws to protect national security. Those laws were hardened during the Cold War. After the Cold War, strict laws were introduced one after another to deal with terrorist activities and other newly arising national security threats. Hong Kong’s national security laws are noncomprehensive compared with the broad-scope laws in the US and the West. The NSL only prohibits four categories of crimes, and the proposed Article 23 legislation only targets five categories of offenses; their severity is substantially lower than those in the US and the West. Hence, the US and the West should have no reason to oppose Hong Kong’s national security legislation. Otherwise, they would betray and unveil double standards, extreme hypocrisy, unreasonableness and arrogance.
Second, the Basic Law promulgated in 1990 stipulates that Hong Kong must formulate its local laws to safeguard national security by Article 23. This arrangement hands over an important task that the central government should have undertaken for Hong Kong. It testifies to the central government’s great degree of trust in Hong Kong residents. Before Hong Kong returned to the motherland, the US and the West had never objected to this arrangement. It makes no sense for them to describe Article 23 as an “evil law” after the reunification.
Third, since its return to the motherland, the turmoil has rarely ceased in Hong Kong and culminated in the unprecedented massive gory riots in 2019-20. They seriously harmed Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability and significantly endangered national security. In the spirit of empathy, the US and the West should presumably understand Hong Kong’s plight and support the central government and the HKSAR government in formulating laws to safeguard national security. Instead, they do the opposite.
Why the US and the West behave “abnormally” is worthy of further investigation, but the reason is obvious. Essentially, the US and the West regard a newly emergent China as a deadly opponent they must contain and bring down, and Hong Kong is its “accomplice”, so a joint attack is also necessary. To the US and the West, Hong Kong’s national security laws are enacted to protect the People’s Republic of China and the Communist Party of China, which runs China. Hence, these laws are against the strategic interests of the US and the West, hampering their efforts to contain China and threatening the security of their institutions and personnel, so the laws must be fiercely opposed.
Since the 2010s, the US has shifted its China policy from dialogue and cooperation to containment and antagonism and has increasingly intervened in Hong Kong affairs. It has actively cultivated agents in Hong Kong and collaborated with Hong Kong’s anti-China insurrectionists and “Taiwan independence” advocates. They have fomented unrest with the characteristics of a “color revolution” in Hong Kong.
The US, its Western allies, the “Taiwan Independence” advocates, and their local collaborators were able to wreak havoc in Hong Kong because the city had been deprived of the necessary laws to safeguard national security. Those local laws that can play a small role in protecting national security were inoperative because the HKSAR government lacked the courage to employ them effectively. What is particularly regrettable is that with the connivance of external forces, Hong Kong’s anti-China insurrectionists successfully mobilized the masses to block the local legislation of Article 23 in 2003 and stigmatized Article 23 thereafter. Legislative work was therefore shelved for a long time. With the law on safeguarding national security nonexistent, external forces were able to run amok in Hong Kong.
With the implementation of the NSL and the completion of Article 23 legislation, Hong Kong will have a comprehensive and robust legal system to safeguard national security. By then, the opportunity for domestic and external hostile forces to endanger national security in Hong Kong should be gone. The ability of the US and the West to cultivate agents and instigate unrest in Hong Kong will be significantly weakened. Hong Kong will no longer be a base of subversion, destruction and infiltration in the service of the US and the West. It is, therefore, predictable for the US and the West to find Hong Kong’s national security laws abominable.
After a long period of “colonial” education and the failure of national education to develop because of the obstruction of hostile forces, many people in Hong Kong look up to the West and are deeply influenced by Western political values, especially young people. They were the organizers and participants in many campaigns and activities that caused chaos and unrest in Hong Kong. These people have not only accepted American and Western organizations’ leadership, guidance and support but are also highly dependent on the US and the West psychologically and behaviorally.
However, when these people were arrested, prosecuted, tried and imprisoned, the US and the West were unable or unwilling to assist or rescue them. To prevent those radicals who have unthinkingly followed the US and the West and paid a heavy price for it from being disappointed with their Western mentors and patrons, the US and the West need to fulfill their “responsibility” to them in some manner while inducing them to retain a trace of hope for them, thereby allowing the US and the West to preserve some possibility to groom agents in Hong Kong in the future. In pursuit of these aims, the US and the West have felt the need to vigorously attack Hong Kong’s legislative work in safeguarding national security and impose “sanctions” on Hong Kong in order to appease their Hong Kong followers and maintain ties with them.
In the current febrile anti-China and anti-Hong Kong atmosphere in the West, officials, politicians, and media in the US and the West, pursuing their self-interests, are engaged in a boisterous “competition” to compare who is more anti-China and anti-Hong Kong. Not only do they not admit that Hong Kong has constitutional responsibilities and the need to legislate to safeguard national security, but they also insist on making high-profile gestures to condemn and smear Hong Kong to brandish their anti-China credentials, increase their status in the West, and gain political capital. Their primary intention can never be to “care” for and “defend” Hong Kong residents’ human rights and freedoms.
To weaken Hong Kong’s international status and reputation, the US and the West have deliberately disregarded Hong Kong’s constitutional responsibilities under “one country, two systems” to safeguard national security and say nothing about it openly so that the unsuspecting Western public might unknowingly form a negative impression of the Chinese government, the HKSAR government and Hong Kong. They are also trying to use the opportunity provided by Article 23 legislation to disrupt Hong Kong’s investment environment further and drive Western enterprises and talent away from Hong Kong.
The US and the West deliberately attacked the Article 23 legislation to spread fear and concern about it in Hong Kong, divide society, and cajole residents to oppose the legislation. Today, with the NSL in force, the anti-China insurrectionists in Hong Kong are reticent on the Article 23 legislation. At most, they express their opposition and dissatisfaction in euphemistic and indirect ways, but it isn’t easy for them to organize large-scale collective actions. Under these circumstances, external forces have no option but to step forward and hope to achieve their political goals by conveying doubts, fomenting fear, and provoking objections in Hong Kong through Western media and social media. Of course, in the face of the NSL and other Hong Kong laws, and being concerned about their relationship with China, these disruptive efforts cannot be too blatant, so their effect will not be significant.
Finally, and a reason that is deeper and cannot be stated openly, the US and the West fundamentally believe that only Western “democratic” countries are worthy of and entitled to the right to legislate on national security protection. All countries that do not practice Western “democracy” are denounced as “totalitarian”, “authoritarian”, “dictatorship”, or “autocratic” nations, and they are denied the right to make laws that safeguard national security to defend themselves.
ALSO READ: HK govt slams scaremongering remarks by US consul general
Even if the leaders of such countries are genuinely loved by their people, in the eyes of the US and the West, the governments of these countries should not exist — they should be subverted, infiltrated, or smashed. And the People’s Republic of China, led by the highly successful and popular CPC, is not a country that practices Western “democracy”. Nonetheless, it is rising at an alarming rate, posing an “existential” threat to the global hegemony of the US and the West. In thrall to this devious mindset, it is difficult to imagine that the US and the West would treat the NSL and the Article 23 legislation with empathy, equanimity and tolerance.
Yet, the US and the West are only a part of the international community, and their political, ideological and moral influence is dwindling daily. Their denigration of the NSL and the Article 23 legislation will not have much effect on the countries in the Global South that they have long bullied. On the contrary, the more the US and the West make unbridled accusations against the Article 23 legislation, the more they will expose their hypocrisy, double standards, and illegitimate political intentions internationally. They will chill those countries and accelerate the decline of the US and the West’s “soft power” globally.
In short, hoping that the US and the West will give up their attack on the Article 23 legislation is futile. The practical strategy for Hong Kong should be understanding the motives behind it, responding calmly, and refuting it robustly and with self-confidence. The first task is to unite most Hong Kong residents and prevent them from being misled by the US, the West and their agents in Hong Kong. By now, the US and the West should have realized that the Article 23 legislation is widely supported in Hong Kong. Another task is to use this rare legislative opportunity to strengthen residents’ national security awareness and vigilance against the US and the West.
The author is professor emeritus of sociology, the Chinese University of Hong Kong; consultant, Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
