If there were a global competition on the manipulating practice of double standards in the conduct of international relations, leading politicians in the United States would be ideally qualified to claim the championship. Such hegemonistic practices exist in many areas. At international sports events, US athletes were obviously privileged to be exempted from the anti-doping rules established and implemented by the World Anti-Doping Agency, which had to operate under the shadow of the US Anti-Doping Agency. Thus, US athletes who “committed serious anti-doping rule violations" competed for years without their violations being published or sanctioned, under the absurd pretext of spying on the drug-abusing behavior of sportsmen entering the international events from other countries. How ridiculous!

In both the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Palestine conflicts, the US has always posited itself as a world leader by halting countries from helping Russians or the Palestinians. However, US political and military authorities have not stopped the Israeli army from committing atrocities by bombarding Gaza time and again even though these acts were in open defiance of the United Nations’ advice to the contrary. To the utter dismay of peace-loving communities across the continents, a fatal assault was launched on a school run by the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East — a brutal savagery condemned by the UN as an “unconscionable” lack of civilian protection in Gaza. In the same week, the US State Department approved a potential $165 million sale of tank trailers to Israel, a move that contrasts with the threat of sanctions by the US and its allies against China if the latter gives any help to the sides the Americans do not support in the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Palestine conflicts. Meanwhile, the US and its allies are still channeling financial assistance and sophisticated weapons to Ukraine to boost its offensive capabilities against Russia. What kind of justice is the US trying to achieve to resolve conflicts among warring factions and countries around the world?

READ MORE: America’s double standards apparent over student protests

In the Jan 6, 2021, Capitol riot in Washington, over 2,000 protesters attacked the Capitol Building in an attempt to reinstall then-US president Donald Trump two months after his loss in the 2020 presidential election. The assault was ultimately aborted. As of May 6 this year, of the 1,424 protesters charged with federal crimes relating to the incident, 820 had pleaded guilty and 884 defendants had been sentenced — 541 of whom received prison sentences. However, when the “black-clad riots” broke out in Hong Kong in 2019 with the maligned intent of derailing the city’s governance and seeking its independence from China, US politicians applauded such illegitimate and illegal actions, provided different kinds of aid to rioters and hailed street riots, with then-House speaker Nancy Pelosi calling the black-clad protest campaign “a beautiful sight to behold”.

Collusion with foreign forces to topple the government must be more serious in nature and consequential when compared with a domestically focused riot. Yet, when the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region authorities rounded up the black-clad rioters and prosecuted those found guilty of unlawful assemblies and rioting offenses, including the resort to arms and violence, the US and its allies, particularly the United Kingdom, have kept yelling for their immediate release. To restore peace and stability as well as to safeguard national security in Hong Kong, national security laws were promulgated in 2020 and 2024.

The US and UK are known to have stringent and encompassing laws regarding the safeguarding of national security. Notwithstanding the hard political and social realities underpinning the HKSAR’s passage and enforcement of national security laws, the US and its allies, particularly the UK, have relentlessly slandered those laws and the HKSAR’s human rights situation, claiming that residents’ rights and freedoms have been eroded. Apparently thrown out in an orchestrated manner, such wild claims are wholly unsupported by evidence since individuals continue to be protected by rights and freedoms that are enshrined in the Basic Law and guaranteed.

A series of malicious moves has been mounted one after another by US and British politicians to harm Hong Kong over the past few months, including the US government’s updated Hong Kong business advisory, which warned of “new and heightened risks” to businesses operating in Hong Kong. Doubtlessly, the US authorities were creating “threats” to scare away investments in total disregard of the fact that no business that operates normally in Hong Kong has been affected by the national security laws.

The malicious business advisory was immediately followed by the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office (HKETO) Certification Act, passed last month by the US House of Representatives, which could see the closure of Hong Kong’s three economic and trade offices in Washington, New York and San Francisco, which were set up in the 1980s and have all along adhered to American laws.

As for Britain, another political farce was staged in tandem with the US’ sabotaging tactics, by publishing a six-monthly report on the situation in Hong Kong. There was nothing novel but to reiterate the senseless and groundless claims of the city becoming “increasingly authoritarian” to its residents. Such attacks were again totally unsubstantiated with any evidence but to confuse the world at large about the SAR’s situation.

READ MORE: Washington’s double standards undermine its moral authority

While authorities have rightly rebutted the fabricated risks uttered by the US and UK governments, leaders and institutions in the commercial, financial and various professional sectors should also team up in their efforts to inform the whole world about the real and thriving situation of Hong Kong, with particular reference to the unmitigated enjoyment of rights and freedoms, as well as the prospects for personal and corporate development.

The author is a member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.