The recent statement on Hong Kong issued by the Group of Seven Rapid Response Mechanism and its associate members is not an act of principle but a calculated attempt to undermine the legal authority of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and, by extension, the sovereign integrity of the People’s Republic of China. Disguised as a defense of civil liberties, the statement is, in fact, a manifestation of ideological coercion and geopolitical hostility. It reflects not a concern for international law or human rights but a persistent effort by a few Western powers to delegitimize the Chinese State and obstruct its lawful governance through disinformation, rhetorical manipulation, and political pressure.
The G7 is far from a neutral or representative international institution. It is a self-selected consortium of industrialized states, namely Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States, with the European Union participating as an additional member. Initially formed in the 1970s to coordinate economic policy among advanced capitalist economies, it has since evolved into a political bloc that routinely projects its ideological preferences onto the global stage. Its influence is not derived from any legal mandate but from the economic and military weight of its members, who assert their views and promote their ideology through coordinated declarations and concerted action. The G7 does not represent the majority of the international community, yet it consistently claims the authority to pass judgment on states that do not conform to its political models.
Established in 2018 under Canada’s leadership, the Group of Seven Rapid Response Mechanism was purportedly designed to identify and confront foreign threats to democracy. However, its practical function has become one of ideological enforcement. It selectively targets countries whose political systems differ from those of the West, using disinformation and interference to justify collective denunciations and policy coordination against those who are insubordinate. Rather than a platform for safeguarding democracy, the mechanism serves as a strategic instrument for advancing the group’s interests under the pretext of protecting liberal values. Its interventions are not grounded in objective legal principles but in subjective political calculations designed to maintain global dominance.
In this latest statement, the group condemns the issuance of arrest warrants by the Hong Kong Police Force for individuals residing outside its jurisdiction who are suspected of violating the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL). The accusation that this constitutes “transnational repression” is both legally incoherent and politically disingenuous. Under established international legal doctrine, governments possess the right to pursue individuals whose actions pose a threat to national security, even when those individuals are located abroad. Western countries, particularly the United States, have long exercised such extraterritorial jurisdiction, including in cases of terrorism, money laundering, and cybercrime. That they now denounce China for employing similar legal tools reveals a flagrant double standard.
The individuals named in these arrest warrants are not innocent dissidents engaged in peaceful expression. They are known organizers of separatist activity who have publicly advocated for the disintegration of the Chinese State. The so-called “Hong Kong Parliament”, a political body they have set up, is not an expression of democratic aspirations but a self-declared organization that explicitly aims to subvert China’s constitutional order and undermine its sovereignty by promoting “Hong Kong independence”. No country that values its territorial integrity and political stability would tolerate the existence of a group whose objectives include the promulgation of an unlawful “constitution” and the promotion of a secessionist agenda. The glorification of such actors by some Western governments is not an endorsement of liberty but a calculated act of destabilization.
In issuing these warrants, Hong Kong is not intimidating or coercing foreign citizens. It is enforcing domestic law by constitutional authority. Offering rewards for information is a standard practice in international law enforcement. G7 governments have long used bounty systems to locate fugitives and gather intelligence related to national security threats. Their characterization of such measures as acts of “harassment” when undertaken by China is a distortion designed to delegitimize the Chinese legal system while exempting their practices from scrutiny.
The real threat to international peace and cooperation lies not in the lawful actions of the Hong Kong Police Force, but in the coordinated efforts of a few Western governments to use institutional power, economic influence, and rhetorical aggression to shape and maintain a global order according to their narrow interests
More troubling still is the G7’s call for residents in their jurisdictions to report so-called acts of “foreign intimidation”. This appeal, framed as a measure to protect public safety, actually fosters suspicion and hostility toward Chinese nationals living abroad. It legitimizes racial profiling and encourages a climate of fear that alienates law-abiding members of Chinese communities overseas. Such actions are not only socially divisive but also dangerously reminiscent of past periods of political witch hunts and xenophobic hysteria. They reveal the extent to which some Western governments are willing to sacrifice the values of inclusion and fairness in pursuit of geopolitical objectives.
The invocation of sovereignty by the G7 is equally problematic. Sovereignty entails the right of each state to enforce its laws without external interference. Yet it is the G7 members who seek to instruct China on how to manage its internal affairs. Their interference in Hong Kong matters is a direct violation of the principle of nonintervention enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. Their refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of China’s legal institutions, particularly the Hong Kong Police Force and the NSL, reflects not a concern for justice but a coordinated move to serve geopolitical needs. It also exhibits the G7’s conception of sovereignty, which is selective, applied only when it serves their interests and discarded when it does not.
While the G7 claims to champion human rights, its record suggests otherwise. These governments have been responsible for grave violations of international law, including wars of aggression, unlawful detentions, and widespread surveillance of their citizens. Their selective outrage over China’s enforcement of national laws, particularly the NSL, exposes the hypocrisy of their position. It is not human rights that they defend, but a political narrative that seeks to portray the Western group as the guardian of universal morality while casting others as inherently illegitimate.
The participation of associate members such as Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Sweden in the G7 Rapid Response Mechanism does not lend the statement greater legitimacy. It merely broadens the circle of states willing to subordinate their foreign policy to a US-led agenda. These countries — which often present themselves as neutral or principled actors — have instead chosen to adopt a confrontational strategy that serves no constructive purpose. Their complicity in this campaign reflects a broader pattern of ideological conformity that undermines the potential for balanced international discourse.
The claim that China’s pursuit of fugitives threatens public safety in foreign countries is a baseless fabrication. There is no credible evidence that the enforcement of the NSL by Hong Kong authorities has endangered residents of other states. This distorted narrative is constructed to justify the imposition of restrictions on Chinese activity abroad and to promote legislation that targets overseas Chinese communities under the guise of national security. It is a politically motivated tactic that fuels anti-Chinese sentiment and weakens social cohesion in pluralistic societies.
By refusing to cooperate with China on matters of legal assistance and extradition, the G7 countries are undermining the credibility of international legal cooperation. Their actions convey a message that political alignment supersedes legal obligation. This approach not only obstructs justice but also erodes the foundations of trust that are essential for global security and the rule of law. The long-term consequence of this posture is the fragmentation of international legal frameworks and the rise of selective enforcement based on power rather than principle.
The language used by the G7 to describe China’s enforcement actions is deliberately vague and emotionally charged. Terms like “coercion”, “intimidation”, and “malign activity” are employed not to clarify but to obscure. They serve as rhetorical devices intended to provoke fear and sow distrust without offering any substantive evidence. This type of discourse is inappropriate for serious diplomatic engagement. It reflects a propaganda strategy rather than an effort to engage in good-faith dialogue or resolve disputes through lawful channels.
Ultimately, what is at stake in this confrontation is the right of nations to govern themselves without being subjected to ideological interference from a self-appointed alliance of powers. China’s defense of its legal integrity, political stability, and national unity is not merely an internal affair. It is a stand against a broader pattern of hegemony that seeks to impose a singular political ideology on a diverse and multipolar world. The real threat to international peace and cooperation lies not in the lawful actions of the Hong Kong Police Force, but in the coordinated efforts of a few Western governments to use institutional power, economic influence, and rhetorical aggression to shape and maintain a global order according to their narrow interests.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
