I have warned earlier that after the “Safeguarding National Security Ordinance” (the Ordinance) (“Article 23 legislation of the Basic Law”) is passed and implemented, fierce and vicious attacks on China and its Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will come from Western governments, politicians, and the media. Some officials and members of the Legislative Council involved in the legislative work of the Ordinance might even be “sanctioned” by Western countries. Recent developments have confirmed my prediction.

On March 30, the United States released the “2024 Hong Kong Policy Act Report” (the Report), making many inaccurate and unreasonable criticisms of Hong Kong. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken even vowed to punish some Hong Kong officials “responsible for the intensifying crackdown on rights and freedoms” in Hong Kong by imposing visa restrictions on them. Blinken castigated the Ordinance of having “broad and vaguely defined provisions regarding ‘sedition,’ ‘state secrets,’ and interactions with foreign entities.”

For a long time, the United States and other Western countries have deliberately advocated and promoted an “alternative interpretation” of Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” utterly different from the Chinese government’s version. I tentatively call this the “Western-style interpretation”. The “Western-style interpretation” serves the United States and the West’s strategic interests and antagonistic stance toward China. 

The interpretation has also been enthusiastically endorsed by the “anti-China insurrectionists” in Hong Kong and their supporters and sympathizers. The severe accusations and slanders against Hong Kong’s conditions in the Report, especially regarding the high degree of autonomy, the rule of law, judicial independence, human rights, freedoms, democracy, and the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, are based on the “Western-style interpretation” of “one country, two systems” which reflects gross misunderstanding, severe distortion, and a deliberate intention to mislead regarding “one country, two systems.”

Accordingly, the Report’s criticism of the practice of “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong, especially its work on safeguarding national security, puts the intense animosity toward and strong desire to contain Hong Kong and China by the United States and the West today in full display.

As early as the beginning of 2021, I have pointed out, in my article, that the central fallacies of Western forces’ “Western-style interpretation” of “one country, two systems” include, among others:

The implementation and judicial process of the Hong Kong National Security Law and the related local laws are rigorous. Only a few cases are involved, and the legal rights of those prosecuted are also meticulously protected. In the future, the Ordinance will also be implemented carefully and rigorously, and it is estimated that there will be very few cases of violation

 (1) The Sino-British Joint Declaration is considered as the legal basis and source of legitimacy of “one country, two systems,” thereby “authorizing” the United States and the West to employ it as the “legal rationale” to arbitrarily intervene in Hong Kong affairs after Hong its return to China.

(2) After its return to China, Hong Kong continues to be regarded as a place that belongs to the Western camp and should receive special treatment, care, and protection from the United States and other Western nations.

 (3) The high degree of autonomy Hong Kong enjoys under “one country, two systems” is understood as complete or total autonomy. Hong Kong is regarded as an “independent political entity” or even an “independent country.”

(4) Since Hong Kong enjoys “complete autonomy,” the United States and the West “reasonably” believe that Hong Kong has no constitutional responsibility to enact local legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law to safeguard national security. The United States and the West explicitly intend to use the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region as a “base of subversion” to promote China’s “peaceful evolution” and endanger China’s security.

(5) The United States and the West have never whole-heartedly recognized the Chinese constitution and accepted that the national constitution and the Basic Law jointly constitute Hong Kong’s new constitutional order of Hong Kong after the return to China, nor do they accept the legal validity of the national constitution in Hong Kong.

(6) The United States and the West unilaterally regard the development of [Western style] democracy in Hong Kong as the primary goal of “one country, two systems,” thereby gratuitously giving themselves the “right” to support the “anti-China insurrectionists” in Hong Kong, coined as “democratic and human rights” activists, to fight for “democracy,” protect “human rights” and even seize power in Hong Kong.

(7) “One country, two systems” is a policy devised by Beijing primarily to maintain Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability, regardless of its essential nature being a significant policy prioritizing national interests and security.

(8) The common law is regarded as the only legal perspective to interpret the Basic Law, denying the National People’s Congress Standing Committee’s legislative power over Hong Kong and the power to promulgate the final interpretation of the Basic Law.

(9) The increasingly close economic and trade relations between Hong Kong and the mainland threaten Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy.

(10) The implementation of any form of national education in Hong Kong is objectionable and is smeared as “brainwashing education”.

The “Western-style interpretation” is a severe distortion and misreading of the principle of “one country, two systems.”

In fact, the authoritative interpretation of “one country, two systems” of the central government in Beijing includes:

(1) “One country, two systems” is the principle formulated by the central authority for Hong Kong with national interests given the highest priority, and its legal basis is the Chinese Constitution.

(2) Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China, and any act to split the country, such as seeking “Hong Kong independence,” is strictly prohibited.

(3) As the government of the sovereign state of China overseeing Hong Kong SAR, the central government enjoys comprehensive jurisdiction over Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy comes from the authorization of the central government, and the central government determines the amount of autonomy granted to Hong Kong.

(4) The central authority is the first person responsible for safeguarding national security and, therefore, has the power to formulate laws to safeguard national security and authorize Hong Kong to enact relevant laws.

(5) Hong Kong has a constitutional responsibility to safeguard national security, and it must not become a “subversive base” serving the United States and the West. The central government and Hong Kong have the right to use legal means to deal with those whose goals are treason, secession, collusion with external forces, incitement of unrest, and other behaviors that endanger national security. The passage and implementation of the Ordinance are significant constitutional duties that Hong Kong must undertake under “one country, two systems.”

(6) The United States and the West have no right to interfere in Hong Kong affairs; otherwise, it would violate China's sovereignty and interfere in China’s internal affairs. The United States and the West must not use the excuse of supporting “democracy, human rights, and freedom” to support and assist the “anti-China insurrectionists” in Hong Kong to engage in actions that endanger national security and undermine Hong Kong's stability, order and the rule of law.

(7) Under “one country, two systems,” the Ordinance based on Article 23 of the Basic Law is a local law that must conform to common law principles while taking into account the essential needs of maintenance of national security, the protection of human rights, freedoms, judicial independence, and the maintenance of an attractive investment environment in Hong Kong.

(8) Hong Kong’s democratic development cannot be viewed in isolation. Hong Kong’s democratic development must simultaneously be conducive to safeguarding national security, realizing “patriots governing Hong Kong,” embodying the principle of “executive-led governance,” securing social stability, and maintaining the original capitalist system and the original way of life of Hong Kong.

(9) The relationship between Hong Kong’s economy and the mainland’s economy will inevitably become closer and closer after the return. Hong Kong will gradually integrate into the country’s overall development. Hong Kong must leverage its unique advantages to contribute to the country’s development.

(10) As a part of China, Hong Kong must promote various forms of national education, especially in the national constitution, the Basic Law, and national security, to provide a solid ideological foundation for “one country, two systems”.

However, for a long time, due to the obstruction and sabotage of the “anti-China insurrectionists” patronized by the United States and the West, “one country, two systems” has been not only difficult to implement fully and accurately in Hong Kong but it instead has been deeply immersed in turmoil and violence in the absence of laws to safeguard national security. Hong Kong has, in effect, become a threat to national security.

Only after the central authority made and implemented the Hong Kong National Security Law in 2020 can Hong Kong restore stability and order, and national security will be effectively guaranteed. After the Ordinance was passed, the bulwark to safeguard national security has become much more potent.

It must be pointed out that the Hong Kong National Security Law and the Ordinance only target nine crimes that endanger national security. They have not yet jointly formed a comprehensive legal system for safeguarding national security.

Over the years, all the Hong Kong Policy Act Reports released by the United States have embodied the “Western-style interpretation” of “one country, two systems”. The Report and the statement of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken mainly focused on criticizing the implementation of the Hong Kong national security law and the enactment of the Ordinance. The Report and Blinken’s criticism and smearing prove that “one country, two systems” has finally begun to be fully and accurately implemented in Hong Kong after years of frustration.

The passage of the Ordinance illustrates the active and effective exercise of Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, allowing Hong Kong to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities to the country finally. The Report and Blinken’s accusations of so-called violations of human rights, freedoms, and the rule of law mean that only after the recent enactment of the Hong Kong National Security Law and the Ordinance did Hong Kong begin to have and use typically some legal tools that the United States and the West have always had to safeguard national security and security. It’s just about stabilizing Hong Kong and cracking down on the “anti-China insurrectionists” in Hong Kong.

The implementation and judicial process of the Hong Kong National Security Law and the related local laws are rigorous. Only a few cases are involved, and the legal rights of those prosecuted are also meticulously protected. In the future, the Ordinance will also be implemented carefully and rigorously, and it is estimated that there will be very few cases of violation.

It is incontrovertible that compared with Hong Kong, the laws in the United States and the West to safeguard national security are numerous, draconian, and comprehensive and enforced more stringently, which has a more potent and negative impact on human rights, freedoms, the rule of law, and judicial independence.

In truth, the Report and Blinken are furious not because of the regression of Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, human rights, freedoms, the rule of law, and judicial independence but because it is no longer possible for the “Western-style interpretation” of “one country, two systems” to prevail in Hong Kong. The United States and the West can no longer work with the “anti-China insurrectionists” in Hong Kong to turn the city into a “base of subversion.” 

The Report’s accusations against Hong Kong are not only unfair and unreasonable but also expose the White House’s double standards, hypocrisy, and hostility toward China and its Hong Kong region, especially on national security issues.

The author is a professor emeritus of sociology, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and a consultant of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.