In Hong Kong, the tightening of the national security law has drawn criticism from the United States and Britain. On the one hand, it is a new attack on individual freedoms, on the other, it is the assurance for Beijing to stabilize Hong Kong society.
Published
Update
Reading time: 3 min
Washington and London criticized the Hong Kong government on Wednesday February 28 over an expansion of the national security law. According to them, these new measures further threaten “the exercise of the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong”. A first part of this national security law, dictated by Beijing in Hong Kong, was applied in June 2020, leading to the mass exile of many opponents and provoking strong international reactions. This law, resolutely liberticidal, is extraterritorial, and can therefore be applied to the four corners of the world.
The Hong Kong authorities now wish to extend their text by adding three grounds for crime: treason, insurrection and espionage. These additions aim to fill the “gaps” in the original law, say Hong Kong leaders. But this expansion of the national security law is based on sufficiently vague terms and whose framework is poorly defined. For example, on the “crimes of espionage and revelation of state secrets”, the Hong Kong government provides no clarification on the definition of a state secret. This means that the dissemination of any information related to the government, or its policies, can potentially be subject to condemnation, if this initiative upsets the authorities.
Dissuading any form of opposition
The US State Department speaks of a law designed to “eliminate dissent”. Same tone for David Cameron, the head of British diplomacy, who also specifies that this new legislation does not respect the terms of the handover of Hong Kong to Beijing. This retrocession was recorded in 1997 according to the famous principle “one country, two systems”which normally guarantees Hong Kong, for 50 years, autonomous operation.
The British therefore believe that they still have a right of control over Hong Kong. They even have “the responsibility to guarantee the maintenance of rights and freedoms” of Hong Kong society, says David Cameron. But in Hong Kong, John Lee, the head of the executive, washes his hands of it: “The evil tongues, the political attacks will not stophe declares, and this is precisely why I ask the government to remain in its positions and on alert, to explain what we are doing here, loud and clear, with determination and conviction. Telling the world that we are only protecting ourselves from your attacks. Don’t attack us !”
We see that there is no longer any question of bothering with diplomatic politeness phrases or old agreements from the past. Beijing finishes trampling on the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong. New illustration of the change of era in the relationships between great powers.