Last week, the British government condemned the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China for issuing arrest warrants and placing bounties on a number of individuals who had engaged in activities considered by the Hong Kong authorities to be subversive.
The foreign and home secretaries, David Lammy and Yvette Cooper, accused Hong Kong of engaging in “transnational repression” and stated that the United Kingdom “strongly opposes the National Security Law, which has eroded the rights and freedoms of Hong Kongers”.
The Hong Kong SAR National Security Law, under which the arrest warrants were issued, was introduced in 2020 following a period of widespread disorder in the city, which was actively and publicly backed by external forces. The law’s implementation has since restored stability and order to the city. However, the British government’s constant, politically motivated critique of the law comes from a double standard and is obvious hypocrisy: That is because the British government clearly reserves a right for itself to utilize the rule of law to curtail any protest movement it deems unfavorable to its political agenda, be it violent or nonviolent.
First, it is the prerogative of all sovereign states to have a right to national security. The UK knows this full well. As a part of that right, states frequently exercise their authority to prohibit political movements that constitute a threat to the security and stability of the state itself, be it by separatism, terrorism, or other means; that potentially would cause harm to the general public; and that are linked to foreign influence operations from states that seek to undermine the target. This is reality.
In doing so, the UK actively uses the law to prohibit and prosecute a wide range of protest movements, some of which the public consider unjust. Namely, environmental protesters who sabotage or vandalize infrastructure are jailed, while the activist group Palestine Action has been banned outright as a so-called terrorist organization, a move which was criticized by the United Nations rights chief. In banning Palestine Action, British police last week pursued mass arrests in major cities throughout the UK, locking up people as “suspected terrorists” purely for supporting the cause. For diplomatic reasons, I will not discuss whether the details are right or wrong in this instance, but the trend is clear, the UK government has absolutely no problem with curtailing protest movements in the name of “national security”.
If riots similar to those that consumed Hong Kong took place in Britain, would the British government tolerate them? The answer is no: The riots of Aug 2, one year ago, in response to the stabbings in Southport, resulted in swift and large-scale imprisonment of the perpetrators. However, the events in Southport were but a fraction of what occurred in Hong Kong in 2019-20
We thus ask ourselves, why does the UK then deny Hong Kong a similar right? And if riots similar to those that consumed Hong Kong took place in Britain, would the British government tolerate them? The answer is no: The riots of Aug 2, one year ago, in response to the stabbings in Southport, resulted in swift and large-scale imprisonment of the perpetrators. However, the events in Southport were but a fraction of what occurred in Hong Kong in 2019-20. This was not just a few enraged thugs, rather it was an organized insurrection across the city which involved comprehensive destruction of infrastructure at scale. The culprits were being openly cheered on by American politicians. Their goal was to try and subvert the HKSAR government and impose their demands by force.
Now, if we take “freedom” and “democracy” as a pass for this kind of activity, does that mean it would be tolerated in Britain? Would the government just say, “Well done, you are supporting a righteous cause, have a pass to break the law”? Of course not. There is no doubt such agitators, no matter how legitimate one might deem their grievances to be, wouldn’t be tolerated.
Given this, the UK demonstrates a brazen double standard when it comes to Hong Kong. It demands, in the name of freedom and democracy, that Hong Kong authorities tolerate what it would never tolerate itself. If it is a criminal act to support Palestine, then by the logic of national security it is perfectly acceptable to outlaw those calling for the independence of Hong Kong and being willing to incite or engage violence to do so. If pressed about this issue, the UK government will tell you in this instance that their national security and sovereignty is non-negotiable, so why do they believe they have a God-given right to criticize other jurisdictions for the same thing? Hong Kong is no longer under British rule and the UK does not have “guardianship” over its affairs.
The author is a British political and international-relations analyst.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
